Dismissed¶13

Pushpendra @ Anshu v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025A482/18348/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 73), Raj Beer Singh, J., order dated 9.1.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:4666; Application U/S 482 No. 18348 of 2024, Pushpendra @ Anshu v. State of U.P. and Another. Keywords: Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; recovery warrants; arrears of maintenance; Family Court Kanpur Dehat; compromise between husband and wife; inherent powers; patent illegality; perversity; dismissal of 482 application.

What did the court decide?

No patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order issuing recovery warrants, so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ¶12

Pushpendra @ Anshu vs State of Up and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4666

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18348 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pushpendra @ Anshu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mridul Mishra,Umesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat, in case no. 72 of 2019, under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, whereby recovery warrants have been issued against the applicant.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2, who has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was decided by the judgement dated 18.05.2015, awarding maintenance to the opposite party no. 2. After that both the parties have compromised the matter but in proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., the Family court has issued recovery warrants for realization of arrears of maintenance and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶10

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶11

Perusal of record shows that applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2. It appears that opposite party no. 2 was granted

¶12

maintenance by the Family court vide judgement dated 18.05.2015. There is nothing to show that the said judgement has been set aside or altered or otherwise interfered with by any higher court. It appears that the opposite party no. 2 has initiated the proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance and in those proceedings recovery warrants have been issued against the applicant. No such patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Anand

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpendra @ Anshu v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra @ Anshu v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramprakash Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu vs State of U.P.

Vinay Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sachin Kumar Gupta and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Singh Rajput vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shabana vs State of U.P. and Another