Dismissed

Neeraj Kumar v. State of Up 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024A482/5000/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an interim maintenance order of Rs. 8000/month by the Family Court. The Court held the amount was not excessive and refused to interfere at the interim stage.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing the interim maintenance order of Rs. 8000/- per month rejected. Case remanded to Trial Court to be decided finally within three months.

Neeraj Kumar vs State of Up 3 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124480

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5000 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Tripathi,Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of impugned order dated 08.11.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonebhadra, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 280 of 2022 (Kanchan Devi and others vs. Neeraj Kumar).

¶8

Applicant before this Court is husband of Opposite Party No. 2. He is aggrieved by determination of amount as interim maintenance which is in total Rs. 8000/- per month.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant has essentially placed reliance on objections as well as a police report submitted in an application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by complainant that Opposite Party No. 2 is residing at another place on her own will as well as that applicant is earning only Rs. 15-17 thousands per month and he has to take care of his parents also.

¶10

On a specific query of this Court, about source of police report annexed alongwith this application, the same is not disclosed. However, at this stage, Court is not going into this controversy.

¶11

So far as other argument of learned counsel for applicant is concerned, since it is an interim stage as well as outcome of above

¶12

referred police report is also not on record and otherwise also said proceedings are initiated under different provisions, whereas present proceedings are arising out of Section 125 Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned order at this stage.

¶13

Supreme Court in numerous cases has held that it is the duty of husband to take care of his wife and children. Court is not entering much into merit of this case as any observation of this Court will prejudice the case of either party. At this stage, Court is of the view that maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month is not on much higher side. The prayer made in this application is accordingly rejected.

¶14

However, the application is disposed of with observation that Trial Court concerned will take all endeavour to decide case finally expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 AK

¶17

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

Neeraj Kumar v. State of Up 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar v. State of Up 3 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

Praveen Saxena Alias Rinku vs State of U.P. and Another

Banti and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Kumar Rai and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Leeladhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogendra vs State of Up and Another

Sundar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another