Disposed

Manoj Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024A482/29443/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by a husband facing default in maintenance was not entertained by the High Court at this stage. The court directed the applicant to file an appropriate execution application in the Family Court with an undertaking to clear half the arrears in three weeks to modify the existing order.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Applicant granted liberty to file appropriate execution application in Family Court with undertaking to clear half arrears in 3 weeks.

Manoj Kumar Saxena vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147962

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29443 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Saxena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Imran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

A picture has been canvassed that applicant (husband of complainant) has suffered a lot that despite a compromise entered between parties, no order could be passed on mutual divorce petition, however, picture is not very clear rather it is blur since admittedly, applicant has got remarriage without even a decree of divorce. Marriage between parties herein was solemnized in the year 1999.

¶7

Meanwhile, complainant has lodged an FIR against applicant under Sections 323, 506, 494 IPC wherein applicant has faced trial and finally by judgment and order dated 29.07.2013, he was granted acquittal.

¶8

During above proceedings, complainant has filed an application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. since she was not able to maintain herself and same was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2012 with a direction to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- (2000/- for wife and 1000/- for their children).

¶9

Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel submits that initially applicant was paying regularly and even at later stage, second agreement was entered between parties also and certain amount was also paid but it was also not honoured at the instance of complainant.

¶10

Learned counsel further fairly submits that later on, there was a default in payment of maintenance amount and consequently, proceedings were initiated U/s 125(3) Cr.P.C. by complainant and since there was repeated and huge default, the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 was passed. For reference, same is quoted below -:

¶11

"10.10.2023

¶12

पपककरकगयक।आववददककदनशशबकलकसकसवनकउपसससत।दवपकशमननज कपमकर सकसवनक अन प सससत। आववददकक नव दवपकश सव भरणपनषण कक धनरकदश वससलश हवतप वकद सस0- 2087/2022 असतगरत धकरक 125 (3) दस०प०सस० जजसममवकदसस०- 267/2012 ककपतकवलशममअसकन 1,29,200/- रपयव ककशवषवससलशहवतपयनजजतदकयकहह।इसकव अदतररकवकदसस0- 1134/2021 ददनकनक 22.08.2020 सवददननक 21.08.2021 ककअवजधकव जलएअसकन 24,000/- रपयव कक वससलश हवतप पसतपत दकयक हह इसश पककर वकद सस01370/2022 ददनकनक 22.08.2021 सवददनकनक 21.08.2022 ककअवजध कव जलए असकन 24,000/- रपयव तसक वकद सस0-1831/2023 ददनकनक 22.08.2022 सव ददनकनक 21.08.2023 कक अवजध कव जलए असकन 24,000/- रपयवककवससलशहवतपलसमबतहह।इसपककरदवपकशपरभरणपनषण कव मद मम 1,29,2000 तसक 72,000/-रपयव, इस पककर कपल 2,01200/- रपयमककवससलशहवतपउपरनकवकदलसमबतहह।दवपकशसवउक धनरकदश कक वससलश हवतप कई बकर ररकवरश ननदटस व ररकवरश वकरणट उसकव दवभकगशयककयकरलयअजधशकसशअदभयनतक, मधययचलदवदपतनगरशयदवतरणखणड नशबसपककर चचक, लखनऊभवजवगयवहहजहकनउसवशदमककव पदपरककय र त हननक बतकयक गयक हह लवदकन उक धनरकदश आज तक अजधशकसश अदभयनतक, मधयकसचलदवदपतनगरशयदवतरणखणडनशबसपककर चचक, लखनऊदकरकदवपकशसव वससलकरनयकयकलयकननहहभवजकगयकहह।ददनकनक 16.02.2023 कनयह आदवशपकररतदकयकगयकसकदकअजधशकसशअदभयनतक, मधयकसचलदवदपतनगरशय दवतरण खणड नशबस पककर चचक, लखनऊ दवपकश कन दनदरदशत करम दक वह आववददकककनदवयसमसतभरणपनषणककधनरकदशआववददकककव खकतवममएकमपशत असवक चकर समकन दकशतन मम जमक करमअसवक नयकयकलय मम उपसससत हनकर अपनकसपषशकरणदव।दवपकशकपछदतजसयनपरनयकयकलयममहकजजरहहआलवदकन कनई भपगतकन नहह दकयक। यह आपजतजनक हह। अतत अजधशकसश अदभयनतक, मधयकसचलदवदपतनगरशयदवतरणखणडनशबसपककर चचक, लखनऊसवअपवकककक जकतशहहदकवहदवपकशसवउपरनकधनरकदशएकमपशतवससलकरककरआववददकककव खकतकसस०- 3496625607 सवनटटलबबकआफइसणडयकबडकबकजकर, बरवलशमम जमक करकयव अनयसक उसकक ववतन भपगतकन रनक दम जजससव वह नयकयकलय मम उपसससतहनवम।इससमबनधममअपनकअन प कलनआखयकदनयमकनपसकरनयकयकलय ममपसतपतकरम।वकदममअदगमदतजस 20.11.2023 दनयतहह।आदवशककएक पदतपसजशककतडकककव मकधयमसवअजधशकसशअदभयनतक, मधययचलदवदपतनगरशय दवतरण खणड नशबस पककर चचक, लखनऊ, इस वकद कक एक पदत अनय समबसनधतवकदनममरखशजकयम।"

¶13

Learned counsel, on instructions, submits that when above referred impugned order was passed, applicant's

¶14

bank account has minimal deposit though details of it are not on record and since due to above referred order, now salary account of applicant has been stopped, therefore, he has no other means to satisfy outstanding amount which is about Rs. 2,00,000/- as on 10.10.2023 (At present about Rs. 2,35,000).

¶15

Learned counsel further submits that applicant is ready to pay outstanding amount but for that he may be allowed to withdraw from his salary account, details of present balance is not on record. He also submits that still there is a possibility of mediation between the parties.

¶16

I have considered the above submissions.

¶17

It is not in dispute that applicant is under default and present outstanding amount is about Rs. 2,35,000/-. Details of present balance in bank account is not on record.

¶18

In aforesaid circumstances, since impugned order is arising out of an execution proceedings, Court is not interfering at this stage. Still applicant will be at liberty to file appropriate application before Family Court disclosing his bonafide with an undertaking that as soon as he is allowed to withdraw money, he will clear outstanding amount, at least half of it within 3 weeks.

¶19

If such application with said undertaking is filed, Family Court concerned is directed to consider it and modify the order dated 10.10.2023 since it would be in the interest of complainant. For rest amount, Family Court will be at liberty to fix installments, however, there will be a condition that there should not be any default in future monthly payments and for that Family Court could pass an order to deduct said amount directly from bank account of applicant and to deposit the same in bank account of complainant.

¶20

If contesting parties give consent, the matter may be referred to Mediation Center of concerned Family Court.

¶21

Application is disposed of with above observations. Order Date :- 11.9.2024

¶22

N. Sinha

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Bahadur Singh Alias Rajbahadur vs State of U.P. and Another

Himanshu Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sheelendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Prashant Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another