Abdul Rahman vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6218 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13781 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Abdul Rahman
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukhtar Alam,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Shyam Ji Gaur
 

 
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri shyam Ji Gaur, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue an interim mandamus staying the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Misc. Case No. 115 of 2005 and judgment and order dated 7.10.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bijnor, whereby criminal revision No.296 of 2005 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs. 750/- each to the minor children has been awarded vide impugned order dated 21.07.2005 without considering the income of the petitioner and thus the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be quashed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer and states that that the applicant has neither paid any arrears of maintenance amount nor is paying the monthly maintenance amount, as has been ordered by this Court.

Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 16.11.2006, co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted conditional interim order whereby the realization of of the amount pursuant to the orders dated 21.07.2005 as well as 07.10.2006 was stayed in event, the petitioner continues to deposit Rs. 1500/- per month towards maintenance and also the petitioner was directed to deposit half of the arrears of maintenance amount within a period of three months from that date i.e. 16.11.2006, however the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid order.

In view of above, the interim order stands vacated.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any legal infirmity in the order which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused.

The instant petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.7.2022

Abhishek Singh