Vibha Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025A483/86/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 483 Cr.P.C. application; expedited/time-bound disposal direction; Section 128 Cr.P.C. execution of Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order; Rs. 4,000 per month maintenance unpaid; six-month deadline from certified copy; no unnecessary adjournments; Family Court Bareilly judgment 23.2.2023; Family Court-III Jaunpur; Case No. 964 of 2023; Vibha Tiwari v. Deepak Shukla; P.S. Sigramau District Jaunpur; Allahabad High Court; Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; decided 5.2.2025; 2025:AHC:19396.

What did the court decide?

Time-bound direction to the court concerned (Family Court-III, Jaunpur) to decide the Section 128 Cr.P.C. execution case within six months of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to no legal impediment, coupled with a bar on unnecessary adjournments. ¶¶10

Vibha Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct the Family Court concerned to decide the pending Section 128 Cr.P.C. execution case, Case No.964 of 2023 (Vibha Tiwari Vs. Deepak Shukla), expeditiously within a stipulated period, having regard to the applicant's hardship.

¶¶7

Court's answer

In the factual matrix of the case and considering the hardship suffered by the applicant/aggrieved wife, the Court concerned is directed to decide the execution case within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before it, if there is no legal impediment.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

No unnecessary adjournment shall be sought or granted in the matter by/to either of the parties.

¶¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.), Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:19396; Application U/S 483 No. - 86 of 2025, decided 5.2.2025. Filed under Section 483 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur to expeditiously decide Case No.964 of 2023 (Vibha Tiwari Vs. Deepak Shukla) under Section 128 Cr.P.C., pending for more than one and a half years. Counsel submitted that a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance judgment dated 23.2.2023 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, awarding Rs.4000/- per month, had not been complied with and no amount had been received. Considering the hardship to the applicant-wife, the High Court directed the court concerned to decide the case within six months from production of a certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment, and further directed that no unnecessary adjournment be sought/granted by/to either party. The application stood disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19396

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 86 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Vibha Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Dubey,Vishwanath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to direct the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur to decide the Case No.964 of 2023 (Vibha Tiwari Vs. Deepak Shukla) under Section 128 Cr.P.C., P.S. Sigramau, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur, expeditiously within a stipulated period.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant / wife before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly wherein judgment was passed on 23.2.2023 by the said court and opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance amount in favour of the applicant / wife. However, the said order was not complied with and no amount of maintenance has been received by the applicant so far. An application for the execution of the same was moved by the applicant before the court under section 128 Cr.P.C. which is pending more than one and half years. The applicant is a lady and she is suffering a lot both mentally and financially. She has no means of livelihood. Hence, it has been prayed that a suitable direction be given to the court concerned to decide the execution application within a stipulated time.

¶9

In the factual matrix of the case and keeping in view the hardship suffered by the applicant / aggrieved wife, the Court concerned is directed to decide the aforesaid case within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it, if there is no legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought/granted in the matter by/to either of the parties.

¶10

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 ss

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vibha Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vibha Tiwari v. State of U.P. 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

Niraj Yadav @ Niraj vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Lochan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Subedar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Jyoti Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another