Dismissed¶16

Sanjay v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2026A482/7414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition dismissed; ex parte maintenance order under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22) upheld; recall of ex parte order rejected; legally wedded wife deserted by husband; maintenance Rs.3,500/- per month; mediation failed (report dated 18.12.2024); interim deposit Rs.1,55,000/-; Complaint Case No. 4618 of 2012; Judicial Officer Pindra / ACJM Court No. 8 Varanasi; Allahabad High Court; Deepak Verma, J.; decided May 5, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as devoid of merits; no relief to the applicant, who was directed to regularly pay maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 in terms of the court below's order. ¶16

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex parte order dated 20.10.2014 awarding maintenance to opposite party no.2 and the order dated 06.11.2023 rejecting the recall application suffer from illegality or perversity warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Court's answer

No illegality or perversity was found in the impugned orders; opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and appears to have been deserted by him; the learned Magistrate rightly allowed the maintenance application awarding Rs.3,500/- per month, and no interference is warranted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is directed to regularly pay the maintenance amount to opposite party no.2 in terms of the order passed by the court below.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of (i) the ex parte order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 4618 of 2012 (Smt. Mamta Vs. Sanjay & Others) under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, whereby Rs.3,500/- per month maintenance was awarded to the wife, and (ii) the order dated 06.11.2023 by which the Judicial Officer, Pindra, Varanasi rejected the applicant-husband's recall application. Holding that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife who appears to have been deserted by the applicant, and finding no illegality or perversity in the orders of the courts below, the Court declined interference. Mediation pursuant to the interim deposit direction dated 10.04.2024 (Rs.1,55,000/-) having failed as per report dated 18.12.2024, the applicant was directed to regularly pay the maintenance amount in terms of the order of the court below.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7414 of 2024

¶3

Sanjay

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Majahar Ali, Sushma Devi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 74

¶7

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Judicial Officer, Pindra, Varanasi as well as the order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 4618 of 2012 (Smt. Mamta Vs. Sanjay & Others), under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Phoolpur, District-Varanasi, pending in the Court at Pindra, District-Varanasi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, who initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Notice was issued to the applicant, however, he did not appear before the trial court and consequently the proceedings were decided ex parte vide order dated 20.10.2014, whereby maintenance and other reliefs were granted in favour of opposite party no.2. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application for recall of the ex parte order dated 20.10.2014. The said recall application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.11.2023.

¶11

This Court, vide order dated 10.04.2024, directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- within two weeks, out of which Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid to opposite party no.2 and Rs.5,000/-

¶12

A482 No. 7414 of 2024

¶13

¶14

towards mediation expenses. Pursuant thereto, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre; however, no settlement could be arrived at between them. As per the report dated 18.12.2024 submitted by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the mediation proceedings have failed. By means of the order dated 20.10.2014, the court below directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance.

¶15

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and it appears that she has been deserted by him. The learned Magistrate has rightly allowed the maintenance application and awarded a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2. No interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Accordingly, the present application, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed .

¶17

The applicant is directed to regularly pay the maintenance amount to opposite party no.2 in terms of the order passed by the court below.

¶18

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶19

May 5, 2026 KJ

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Brij Bihari Nagayach vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jittu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyam Shankhvar and Another Vs State of Up and 3 Other

Dharmendra Kumar Gupta and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amil Vs State of U.P. and Another