Dismissed

Shadab Ali Khan v. Smt Shadab Khanum and Another

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024A227/7785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of orders denying enforcement of interim maintenance, the petitioner admitted no specific order extended maintenance to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., only under the DV Act. The Court dismissed the petition but directed the petitioner to deposit the due amount within a month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit entire amount due to respondent no. 1 within one month before the learned court concerned.

Shadab Ali Khan vs Smt Shadab Khanum and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193589

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7785 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shadab Ali Khan Respondent :- Smt Shadab Khanum And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Peeyush Kumar Pathak,Prateeyush Kumar Pathak

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner. In spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred with the following prayers:-

¶8

"A. Issue an order or direction to quash the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Court of A.C.J.M/C.J(S.D)/Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in Case no. 190 of 2018 as well as subsequent order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/A.T.C. (Crime against women), Saharanpur in Misc. Case no. 1221 of 2020."

¶9

It is admitted case of the petitioner that interim maintenance has already been extended in favour of respondent no. 1 through order dated 23.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in Case no. 190 of 2018 (Smt. Shadab vs. Shadab and others) during proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 amounting Rs.3,000/and Rs.1,000/- in favour of son of petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the proceedings arising out of section 125 Cr.P.C, Rs.5,000/- has been extended by the orders of the concerned court in favour of son of petitioner and as such in pursuance to order dated 23.07.2018, the same has been adjusted in favour of the son and the payment is being paid on regular monthly basis.

¶11

On precise query, made before learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to extension of interim maintenance in favour of respondent no. 1, it is fairly conceded that since no specific order has been passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of respondent no. 1 in shape of extension of any maintenance and as such Rs.3,000/- as directed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Senior Division/Fast Track Court,

¶12

Saharanpur is only maintenance extended in favour of respondent no. 1 which is interim in nature.

¶13

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Case no. 190 of 2018 wherein all the documents have already been preferred at the behest of petitioner is still pending to be adjudicated. However, order 23.07.2018, has been put for recall, before the same learned concerned Court but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2023 which impugned the present petition.

¶14

The grounds taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner is still subject to final adjudication before learned court concerned and as such the interim maintenance whatsoever has been extended has not been complied with by the petitioner till today.

¶15

After hearing the submissions extended by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is crystal clear that in spite of orders dated 23.07.2018 and 31.05.2023 not a single penny has been extended in pursuance to interim maintenance extended in favour of respondent no. 1.

¶16

It is open for the petitioner to pursue Case no. 190 of 2018 on the grounds whatsoever has been taken up before this Court as well as on the basis of the documentary evidences already preferred in shape of objection raised for initiating the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 but at this juncture, no interference is required by this Court. However, petitioner is hereby directed to deposit entire amount due within a month in favour of respondent no. 1, before learned court concerned.

¶17

The instant petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.12.2024 Shaswat

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shadab Ali Khan v. Smt Shadab Khanum and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab Ali Khan v. Smt Shadab Khanum and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Sunder Agrawal and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Pramod Kuamr Rawat vs State of Up and Another

Brijesh Kumar vs Neeta Devi

Vidit Jaiswal vs State of Up and Another

Gulshan Minor and Another vs State of U.P.

Dheeraj Thapar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another