The Criminal Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the Second Respondent-Magistrate's order dismissing his petition to set aside an ex-parte maintenance order. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the lower court's order and costs imposition.
The criminal petition to quash the impugned order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3629 OF 2009
DATE: 29.09.2010
BETWEEN: Preeti Jain .. Petitioner And State of A.P. and another.
` .. Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3629 OF 2009
ORDER:
Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. None appears for the second respondent.
This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 01.04.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2008 in M.C.No.10 of 2006 passed by the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada.
The second respondent/wife filed maintenance Case No.10 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner/husband filed counter and was contesting the matter. Subsequently, on 09.11.2006, he was set exparte on the ground that he did not participate in the proceedings. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate allowed the maintenance case on 08.01.2007 granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the wife.
Feeling aggrieved, the husband filed the present petition to quash the order dated 01.04.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2008 in M.C.No.10 of 2006 passed by the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada setting aside the exparte order passed earlier.
The order passed by the learned Magistrate Shows that while
setting aside the order, the learned Magistrate took into consideration that O.P.No.1839 of 2006 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife was allowed and for the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order, the learned Magistrate also imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the wife I absolutely see no illegality or irregularity in the order requiring interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 29.09.2010 kvrm
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3629 OF 2009
DATE: 29.09.2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Magistrate's order dismissing the husband's petition to set aside an ex-parte maintenance order.
Whether there was any illegality or irregularity in the Magistrate setting aside the ex-parte order and imposing costs on the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Preeti Jain
State of A.P.
State of A.P. and another
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
