Disposed

Vinay Kumar Alias Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024A482/6155/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a maintenance order and recovery warrant under Section 12 DV Act proceedings, contending adjustment against a larger Family Court award and pending revision with interim stay. Court issued notice to respondent no.2 and stayed operation of both impugned orders till next date.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued; operation of maintenance order dated 10.04.2023 and recovery warrant dated 03.05.2024 stayed till next date of listing.

Vinay Kumar Alias Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6155 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Alias Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps be taken within a week. List on the date to be indicated by the office in the notice.

¶7

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 10.04.2024 per which a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance has been directed to be paid by the applicant to respondent no.2. Also under challenge is the recovery order dated 03.05.2024 whereby a recovery warrant has been issued against the applicant/petitioner.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that initially the respondent no.2 had filed a Criminal Case No.215 of 2019 in re: Smt. Suman vs. Vinay Kumar @ Guddu under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Lucknow, praying for maintenance.

¶9

The learned Family Court vide order dated 17.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, awarded a maintenance of Rs.15,000/- in favour of respondent no.2. It was further provided in the said order that in case the claimant/respondent no.2 herein has been awarded any other amount the same would be adjusted in the said sum of

¶10

Rs.15,000/-.

¶11

Being aggrieved with the said order the applicant claims to have filed a Criminal Revision No.1092 of 2023 in re: Vinay Kumar @ Guddu vs. State of U.P. and another. This Court vide order dated 05.10.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, has referred the matter to the Mediation Center of this Court and the revisionist/applicant herein was directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- before the Senior Registrar of this Court failing which the interim protection as had been granted by this Court would not be available to him which was that no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist/applicant herein. The applicant claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the copy of the tender, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the petition.

¶12

However, even prior to learned Family Court having passed the order dated 17.07.2023 whereby an amount of Rs.15,000/had been awarded as maintenance to respondent no.2 another order dated 10.04.2023 had been passed in Case No.1840 of 2019 in re: Smt. Suman vs. Vinay Kumar by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow in a case filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The learned court vide order dated 10.04.2023 had awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- to respondent no.2 herein. Copy of the said order is Annexure-1 to the petition.

¶13

Subsequent thereto, the recovery warrant has been issued vide order dated 03.05.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition.

¶14

The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that once the learned family court vide order dated 17.07.2023 while awarding an amount of Rs.15,000/- had specifically observed that any other amount awarded would be adjusted in the amount

¶15

of Rs.15,000/- and being aggrieved upon a revision being filed this Court vide order dated 05.10.2023 had stayed all coercive proceedings against the applicant and the matter has been referred to Mediation Center of this Court and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been deposited in terms of the directions issued by this Court dated 05.10.2023 consequently there cannot be any occasion for the recovery warrant which has been issued against the applicant more particularly keeping in view the order passed by the learned family court dated 17.07.2023 for adjustment of any other amount in the amount of Rs.15,000/- as have been awarded by the learned family court.

¶16

10.At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant makes a statement at bar that though a final report has been submitted in the mediation proceedings yet the report thereof has still not been sent to this Court.

¶17

11.Keeping in view the aforesaid argument, prima facie, a case for interference is made out. As such, till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.1840 of 2019 as well as the recovery warrant dated 03.05.2024, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition, shall remain stayed.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.7.2024 A. Katiyar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kumar Alias Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Alias Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deenbandhu (According Aadhar Card Deenbandhu Prajapati) vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Mohd. Faisal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Nand Lal Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Dept. Lko. and 2 Others

Abdul Wahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Hariom @ Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko