Dismissed

Sabir Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024A482/28754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order and seek a direction for a medical examination to establish the applicant's spouse's gender and impotency. The High Court dismissed the application, holding the applicant retains the right to cross-examine the medical officer regarding the certificate during the trial of the maintenance case.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash the impugned order and direct a medical examination was dismissed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149091

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28754 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sabir Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Prabhu Narain Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to quash the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Case No.321 of 2015 (Afaroza Bano vs. Sabir Ali) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur and also to direct the learned court concerned to direct the Chief Medical Officer, Mirzapur to conduct the medical examination of the opposite party no.2 for the just decision in aforesaid case and also prays to stay the further proceedings of the case.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case the applicant is husband of opposite party no.2. Further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is not a woman but she is impotent and comes in the category of transgender, therefore, application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance cannot be said to be maintainable. Further submitted that a medical report from J. P. Memorial Hospital, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, George Town, Prayagraj was filed by the opposite party no.2/wife before the learned court showing everything is normal though the applicant moved an application to get his wife medically examined before the Medical Board to identify as to whether she is woman or transgender. Further submitted that an application was moved by the applicant to get his wife medically examined which was rejected by order dated 01.08.2024 on the basis of medical report which was prepared on 26.07.2013 by J. P. Memorial Hospital, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, George Town, Prayagraj. It is also submitted that opposite party no.2 is not in a position to give birth to child. In this way, the order passed by the learned court on 01.08.2024 cannot be said to be lawful without getting the wife medically examined before the Medical Board.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contended that in this case an application for maintenance is pending from the year 2015 and no any penny has been given by the applicant as maintenance to his wife. The applicant is to maintain his wife if she is unable to maintain herself in view of the provisions as contained u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that there is medical report issued by J. P. Memorial Hospital, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, George Town, Prayagraj which is on record to establish the fact that the opposite party no.2 is a woman. During the course of trial the applicant may have opportunity to make cross-examination of the doctor about the certificate issued regarding the fact as to whether the opposite party no.2 is a woman or not. At this stage, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 01.08.2024 cannot be said to be illegal but present application has been moved only for the purpose of depriving the wife from the amount of maintenance.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the material and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 01.08.2024, there appears no ground to quash the order passed by the learned court since the applicant may have an opportunity of cross-examination of the doctor issuing the certificate as to whether she is a woman or not.

¶12

Accordingly, this application being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Ashok Gupta

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sabir Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabir Ali 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

Raghvendra Bajpai @ Pannu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jagardev Alias Chandrashekhar Pathak and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalmani Patel Alias Lalmani Verma and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalita vs State of Up and Another

Jahangir vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another