Dismissed¶12

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jan 2025A482/23522/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025:AHC:6823; maintainability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. application against interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Family Court maintenance order not interlocutory; remedy is revision; Section 19 Family Court Act 1984; Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben distinguished; Liaqat Hussain v. Jainab Praveen; Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay; Ashu Jain; Manish Aggarwal; Family Court Aligarh; limitation in revision.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed as not maintainable; applicant at liberty to file revision or resort to appropriate remedy in accordance with law; certified copy of the Family Court order to be returned to learned counsel for the applicant after retaining photocopy on record. ¶12

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against an order granting interim maintenance passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Court's answer

An order of maintenance or interim maintenance passed by the Family Court is not an interlocutory order; the aggrieved person's remedy against such an order is revision, and an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against such an order is not maintainable.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In the case of Akanksha Arora (supra), relied on by the applicant, no law was laid down that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order granting interim maintenance is maintainable; the Apex Court therein had only observed that a court may convert a Section 482 petition into revision, and no such prayer for conversion was made in the instant matter.

¶11

Key takeaways

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.ratio¶11
If the applicant resorts to revision, the issue of limitation would also fall for consideration.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Raj Beer Singh, J.): Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a Family Court order dated 12.06.2024 granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dismissed as not maintainable. Relying on Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 and Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay, Ashu Jain, Manish Aggarwal and the Division Bench ruling in Liaqat Hussain, the Court held that an order of maintenance or interim maintenance passed by the Family Court is not an interlocutory order and the remedy against it is revision. Akanksha Arora, relied on by the applicant, was held not to lay down any law that such a Section 482 application is maintainable; the applicant did not seek conversion of the petition into revision. The applicant was left at liberty to file revision, with limitation noted as a relevant consideration therein.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6823

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23522 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 12.06.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Aligarh in Case No. 1058 of 20212(Smt. Hemlata Vs. Neeraj Kumar), under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Iglas, District - Aligarh, whereby interim maintenance has been granted in favour of opposite party no.2.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by impugned order, interim maintenance has been granted to the opposite party no.2 and it is an interlocutory order and application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. against such an order is maintainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon case of Akanksha Arora Vs. Tanay Maben (Criminal Appeal No(s). Nil of 2024, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 15909 of 2023), decided on 04.12.2024.

¶9

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶10

In view of provisions of Section - 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 and the law laid down in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay

¶11

Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445, Ashu Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023:AHC:165660 and Manish Aggarwal Vs. Seema Aggarwal and Others 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4816, it is clear that an order of maintenance or interim maintenance passed by Family court is not an interlocutory order and that against such orders, aggrieved person has remedy of revision. It was held that against such order, application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Similar law has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497. In case of Akanksha Arora (supra) relied by learned counsel for the applicant, no such law has been laid down that against an order of grant of interim maintenance, application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. However it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the court may convert a petition under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. into revision. In the instant matter no such prayer has been made. Further in revision issue of limitation is also be to be considered. In view of aforesaid, this application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

¶12

Accordingly, this application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶13

The applicant is at liberty to file revision/resort appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶14

The certified copy of order of Family court may be returned back to the learned counsel for the applicant after retaining photocopy of the same on record.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.1.2025 S Rawat

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases