Dismissed

Bablu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024A482/24402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bablu challenged a non-bailable warrant issued by the Family Court in proceedings for recovery of maintenance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The High Court held that it cannot re-examine evidence in summary proceedings and dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; non-bailable warrant maintained.

Bablu vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150843

¶3

Court No. - 80

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24402 of 2024 Applicant :- Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the marriage of opposite party no.2 with applicant was solemnized on 07.02.2018 in accordance with Hindu rites and ritutals. The opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Family Court. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court Sambhal without considering the objection/written statement of applicant, has awarded maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month from the date of application, vide order dated 12.10.2023. Thereafter on 13.12.2023, the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of amount and execution of order passed in the maintenance case in favour of applicant’s wife. The applicant has appeared in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court and applied for bail and the same was allowed by the court after depositing sureties and bail bond. Thereafter on 13.05.2024, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, in absence of applicant, foreited the said bail bond and sureties and issued non bailable warrant against the applicant and also issued recovery warrant through S.H.O. concerned.

¶8

Learned counsel further submits that the Family Court cannot issue non bailable warrants on an application filed under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The procedure adopted by the Principal Judge, Family Court while proceeding in the aforesaid misc. case is illegal and against the provisions contained under Sub Section (3) of Section 125

¶9

¶10

Cr.P.C. read with Section 421 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the issuance of said non bailable warrant, the applicant has approached this Court. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Deepak Singh Rajawat v. State of U.P. & 2 Ors¹ .

¶11

Per-contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made in the application and submitted that from the perusal of the impugned order, passed in application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, it transpires that on 07.02.2018, the parties had solemnized their marriage as per Hindu rites and traditions, and the parents of opposite party no.2-wife has given dowry articles as per their capacity, but her in-laws were not satisfied. After the marriage, the in-laws of opposite party no.2 started raising dowry demand and torturing her, and forced her to leave her matrimonial home, thereafter litigation started between the parties. The oppoiste party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and the same was allowed with the direction to the applicant to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of application. When the applicant has not complied with the order passed by the Family Court, the opposite party no.2 filed application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of amount and execution of order passed in the maintenance case in favour of opposite party no.2.

¶12

It's observed in Rajnesh v. Neha and anotehr² that maintenance is a social measure to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy; if maintenance is not paid timely, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation; the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 19.09.2018, and was decided almost after a dealy of five years on 12.10.2023, since then not even a single penny has been paid to the opposite party no.2wife.

¶13

1 decideded on 13.07.2023, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/ s 482 No. 22043 of 2023.

¶14

2 (2021) 2 SCC 324

¶15

¶16

For the aforesaid reasons and having heard learned counsel for the applicant-husband, and having gone through the record as well as the impugned order, this Court find force in the argument of learned A.G.A, therefore, this Court cannot go into the re-examination/reappreciation of the evidence comeforth during the summary proceedings, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.

¶17

The instant application lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 31.08.2024 A.Tripathi

¶19

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bobi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary and 3 Others

Niraj @ Banti Shahi and 3 Others vs State of Upand Another

Furkan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradumm Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani Alias Bittu and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Shamim and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others