Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2025A227/1287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to set aside a recovery order arising from a maintenance award already under challenge in a pending criminal revision. The court held the recovery order was merely consequential and disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioner to seek redressal before the forum where the original order is pending.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petitioner left at liberty to seek redressal of grievances arising from the original order before the appropriate forum.

Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19400

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1287 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred with the following prayers:-

¶8

"i) set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 of Rs.11,38,000/- and order of recovery dated 10.1.2025 passed by Principal Judge Family, Mau is Izra No. 1242 of 2024 (Poonam Singh and others versus Rajesh Kumar Singh) under Section 147 B.N.S.S. Thana Mohammadabad Gohna District Mau.

¶9

ii) direct to Principal Judge Family Court, Mau to adjustment/set of interim maintenance Rs.3000 per month and to adjustment/set of Rs.5000 per month from 2021 to 2024 passed in Case No. 25/2011 (Poonam Singh and others versus Rajesh Kumar Singh) under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶10

iii) direct to Principal Judge Family Court, Mau to grant maintenance to one of two."

¶11

Through the instant petition, order dated 20.11.2024 has been put under challenge through which recovery to the tune of Rs.11,63,000/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 21.12.2019 passed in Case No. 1439 of 2014/old Case No. 4374 of 2010 (Poonam Singh and others vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh) in pursuance to Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that order dated 21.12.2019 has already been challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 1193 of 2020 wherein no interim protection has been granted by co-ordinate Bench of this Court till today.

¶13

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent nos. 2 and 3 preferred a separate proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is also finally decided vide order dated 12.12.2019 in which a separate maintenance has been extended in favour of respondents.

¶14

Since order dated 21.12.2019 is still pending to be adjudicated finally by coordinate Bench of this Court, the subsequent proceeding in shape of recovery does

¶15

not create any entitlement or right in favour of the petitioner to challenge it separately by way of instituting the present petition.

¶16

For substantiating arguments as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another decided on 4.11.2020; 2021 (1) SCC(Cri)749 wherein, it has been held that it is inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding.

¶17

On precise query made before, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that this ground has already been taken while preferring Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 1193 of 2020 preferred at the behest of the petitioner for challenging order dated 21.12.2019.

¶18

Learned AGA however vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner but strongly contended that the instant order which impugned the present petition is a subsequent one and not being separate one for espousing any ground in favour of the petitioner for challenging it in shape of present petition but the remedy is available before the petitioner to apprise the Hon'ble Court where the Criminal Revision is still pending.

¶19

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, however the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is still holding field but the same may be apprised at the time of hearing over the grievances, if any caused due to proceeding arising in the pretext of order dated 21.12.2019 which impugned the present petition. Order dated 10.01.2025 for recovery of the amount which has been directed by learned concerned court at the time of finalisation of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a separate one rather it is a consequential proceeding arising out of same order which is under challenge before co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as such petitioner will be at liberty to seek redressal of grievances arising out of original order dated 21.12.2019 before appropriate forum of law.

¶20

The instant petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Shaswat

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Patel vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Fareen and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amit Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gulab Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and 3 Others