Raisha Kadri and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25040

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 369 of 2025

Applicant :- Raisha Kadri And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Pandey,Syed Ahmad Mehdi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present application under Section 483 Cr.P.C/529 B.N.S.S has been preferred with the following main prayer:-

¶7

" Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Court of Learned Principal Judge Family Court, Sultanpur to decide the Case for enforcement of maintenance bearing Criminal Case no. 1051 of 2019; Raisha Kadri versus Mohd. Sher Khan, Under Section 128 Cr.P.C, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, expeditiously as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit which is pending before the Court of Learned Principal Judge Family Court, Sultanpur since 27.08.2019 (Contained as Annexure No. 1), in the interest of justice. "

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that an order dated 20.06.2019 has been passed in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the applicants. For the execution of the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the applicant has moved an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C i.e. Criminal Case No. 1051 of 2019 'Raisha Kadri versus Mohd. Sher Khan' in which the respondent no. 2 has already put in appearance and moved an application on 12.04.2021, under Section 127 Cr.P.C against the order dated 20.06.2019, which is still pending.

¶9

It is further submitted that the application preferred under Section 127 Cr.P.C has already been decided by the Court and which could be seen from the order dated 04.07.2022 passed in the case filed under Section 128 Cr.P.C. But till date, no decision has been taken and the applicants are facing financial hardships and it is very difficult for them to make their both ends meet.

¶10

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a direction may be issued to the concerned court to decide the criminal case no. 1051 of 2019, within the stipulated time as this court may fix.

¶11

Learned A.G.A has no objection to the prayer made.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, it is found that the case

¶13

under Section 128 Cr.P.C preferred by the applicants is pending since 2019 i.e. for last more than five years, the respondent had already put in appearance in the said case and took the plea that he has moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C, so the hearing of this case may be adjourned till the disposal of the same.

¶14

From the perusal of the order dated 04.07.2022, it appears that the application preferred by the respondent no. 2 has been decided but even thereafter, since 04.07.2022, no final order has been passed till date and the matter has not been adjudicated finally by the court concerned due to which, the applicants are facing financial hardships. The maintenance in the matrimonial matters is not a charity, it is the right of the wife or the children to get the maintenance.

¶15

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present application is disposed of and the concerned court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting any unncessary adjournments, and if any adjournment is unavoidable, only short dates may be fixed.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.5.2025 DiVYa

¶17

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raisha Kadri and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raisha Kadri and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shailendra Yadav @ Guddu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Arif Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Dr. Puneet Mehta vs Smt. Aradhana Kharbanda and Ors.

Chandrabhan vs Sri Sant Lal Prasad, Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand, Lko.

M/S Hind Security Forces Lko. U.P. Thru. Its Proprietor Sri Ram Nihal Chaudhary vs K. Vijayendra Pandian M.D. Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Limited Kanpur