Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 7446 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24514 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Tahir,J.

This criminal writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5.10.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Mau arising out of the order dated 7.6.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No.693 of 2011 (Smt. Kiran vs. Rajesh Kumar and others) by which the court below awarded Rs.2000/- per month as interim maintenance.

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the labourer and he has no source of income and that respondent no.2 Smt. Kiran is living in adultery  house with some other person. In these circumstances, no case of maintenance allowance is made out against the petitioner. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has cited the rulings reported in 1992 CRI.L.J.4046 Mitanjali Mohanty vs. Fanendra Mohanty and another and 1994 CRI. L.J. 688 Abdul Ahad vs. Smt. Nasreen Bano and has submitted that the order granting the interim maintenance allowance is defective, so the same should be set aside.

I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner relates to the question of fact which is to be decided in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the court of the Magistrate concerned, so in this regard, it would not be proper to express any opinion at this stage. By the impugned order, the Magistrate concerned has granted Rs.2000/- per month as interim maintenance allowance to the respondent no.2. In the facts and circumstances of the matter and in view of the hike of the prices of everything now-a-days, the amount of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court appears to be just and proper. So I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders of both the courts below. The rulings cited by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case, so they are not applicable in this case.

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself.

Order Date :- 12.12.2013

SP