Disposed

Raju Kushwah v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024A482/28385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of maintenance enforcement proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C., contending that his Section 126(2) application to recall the ex-parte maintenance order was pending. The court refused to quash the proceedings since the maintenance order had not been recalled or altered, but directed the Family Court to expedite disposal of the recall application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raju Kushwah vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:188585

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28385 of 2024 Applicant :- Raju Kushwah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Fakhruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 18.07.2024, of Case No. 433 of 2023, under Section 128 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court Jhansi, District Jhansi.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.2 to 5 were awarded maintenance by the Family Court by ex-parte judgement and applicant has already filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the said ex-parte judgement of maintenance. That application is pending but meanwhile recovery warrants have been issued against applicant in proceeding under Section 128 Cr.P.C. It was stated that as the application of the applicant filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. is pending, thus, the impugned proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. may be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that so far the order of maintenance has not been recalled or altered and thus, no case for quashing of the impugned proceedings is made out.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶10

In the instant matter perusal of record shows that opposite party no.2 is wife of applicant no.1 and opposite party no.3 to 5 are minor children of applicant. The opposite party no.2 to 5 were awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by exparte judgement. Merely because the applicant has filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the said exparte judgement, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed. There is no just and valid ground to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly the prayer of quashing of impugned proceedings is hereby refused.

¶11

However, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi is directed to expedite the proceedings of application filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and to decide the same as early as possible.

¶12

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of in above terms.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 RKM

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju Kushwah v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raju Kushwah v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhishek Raj Varshney and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood Ali and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Jitendra vs State of Up and Another

Imran Hashmi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajneesh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another