Dismissed

Lalmohan Alias Manjeet v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024A482/42997/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an interim maintenance order was dismissed as the court found no good or sufficient ground to entertain it, refusing interference with the Family Court's interim award.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as there is no good or sufficient ground to entertain the challenge to the interim maintenance order.

Lalmohan Alias Manjeet vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196790

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42997 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lalmohan Alias Manjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Chauhan,Sriram Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sriram Dhar Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

2. Perused the record.

¶8

Applicant- Lalmohan Alias Manjeet, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Maintenance Case No. 448 of 2020 (Anita Chauhan Vs. Lalmohan @ Manjeet) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Bisalpur, District Gorakhpur, whereby, Court below has awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- and 2000/- respectively from the date of application and thereafter at the rate of Rs.5000/- and Rs.1500/- respectively from the date of the order.

¶9

4 Learned counsel for applicant submits that order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. According to the learned counsel for applicant the amount of interim maintenance awarded by Court below is not only harsh but also excessive. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for applicant has referred of the impugned order and with reference to above, he submits that the income certificate of applicant was duly placed before Court below, wherein, the income of the applicant has been shown as Rs.4000/- per month. On the above conspectus, he therefore, contends that the amount of interim maintenance awarded by Court below does not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the order impugned is liable to be modified by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the

¶11

present application. He submits that it is admitted to the applicant that complainant opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant, whereas opposite party-3 is the minor daughter of applicant. In view of above, applicant is legally and morally bound to maintain them. Learned A.G.A. then invited the attention of the Court to the complaint filed by complainant opposite party-2. As per the said complaint, the marriage of parties was solemnized on 27.04.2018. However, complainant alongwith her minor daughter were ousted from her matrimonial home. However, there is nothing on record to show that applicant has maintained his legally wedded wife and minor daughter from the date they have been living separately. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. that considering the hike in the basic price index and cost of living the amount of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 1500/- awarded by Court below towards maintenance in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3 cannot be said to be harsh, excessive or exorbitant. Furthermore, the arrangement made by Court below by means of impugned order is interim in nature. Parties will have adequate opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective case. Merits of the claim raised by the opposite party-2 can be dealt with threadbare by Court below after the evidence has been adduced by the parties. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

¶12

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage, therefore, irrespective of the submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground so as to entertain the present application.

¶14

In view of above, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Imtiyaz

¶17

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalmohan Alias Manjeet v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalmohan Alias Manjeet 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

Naresh Sharma and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rukhsar Bano vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishtiyaq and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramsumer Patel vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mohit Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another