Dismissed

Bhupesh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024A482/12444/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged a maintenance order after an 8-year delay, citing a divorce decree. The court held that inordinate, unexplained delay bars interference under inherent jurisdiction despite the absence of a specific limitation period.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected due to inordinate delay of 8 years; no interim order; liberty to approach court against divorce decree.

Bhupesh Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134028

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12444 of 2024 Applicant :- Bhupesh Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

The applicant before this Court is husband of opposite party No.2 and has declared that he is paying regularly Rs.12000/-, the amount fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by an order dated 29.07.2016, which has now been challenged after about 8 years.

¶7

Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant submits that opposite party No.2 has suppressed material fact that by an exparte decree filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, divorce was granted and that it is under challenge at behest of complainant before this Court, however, there is no interim order.

¶8

Learned counsel further submits that he was legally advised later on that a divorced wife is not entitled for maintenance as well as that in other proceedings arising out of Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, learned Family Court has directed to pay further payment though it has not been challenged at behest of applicant.

¶9

In order to appreciate the above referred submission, the Court has specified that delay in approaching this Court i.e. whether it was bonafide or not, however, except above referred fact, nothing has been specifically being mentioned in this application even it is also not disclosed about applicant's awareness on above referred legal advice.

¶10

The Court, therefore, cannot interfere with impugned order after inordinate delay of 8 years which remained unexplained, however, applicant has always liberty to challenge other proceedings in accordance with law if so advised or take remedy available under Section 127 Cr.P.C., if so advised.

¶11

No limitation is prescribed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, it does not permit a litigant to suddenly wake up from a deep slumber and approach this Court with a prayer to invoke inherent jurisdiction.

¶12

In the aforesaid circumstances, while rejecting the prayer made in this application, this application is disposed of with aforesaid observations.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.8.2024/P. Pandey

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhupesh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupesh Srivastava v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Mangru Pasi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Alok Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Ashish Garg and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar Alias Vivek Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Khelawan @ Nanak @ Sajan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another