Vimal Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6488 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13292 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vimal Bhardwaj
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra,Sanjay Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding as well as impugned order dated 02.05.2022 & 22.12.2021 passed by Court of 5- F.T.C. Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No.71 of 2019 ( Rakhi Vs. Vimal Bharadwah) under Section - 125(3) Cr.P.C. Police Station - Sihanigate, District - Ghaziaba, pending in the court of 5- F.T.C. Ghaziabad.

Factual matrix of the case, as has been brought is to the import that some application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was moved at the behest of opposite party no.2 -wife of the applicant which was considered and allowed, whereby monthly maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.25,000/- was awarded which upon revision being preferred was reduced to 50 percent of the aforesaid amount say Rs. 12,500/- that was to be paid by the applicant.

Now as per the calculation made, the maintenance amount swelled as due against the applicant to the tune of Rs. 6,87,500 from 21.3.2022. That was not being paid, therefore, the recovery in question was issued as the maintenance amount surged to the tune of Rs. 8,62,500. However that amount was deposited by cheque and received by the wife. Regarding rest of the maintenance amount required to be paid by the applicant, another recovery warrant impugned in this application/petition has been issued. That recovery warrant itself is not specific about the amount to be paid and that being the case it is vitiated in the eye of law being vague as not disclosing any specific amount, recovery warrant issued.

Heard Sri Rahul Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and leaned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record of this application.

Under the fact and circumstances of the case, the original judgment of the concerned Family Court itself is to be acted upon and it is for the applicant himself to calculate the amount based upon the reduced maintenance amount to be paid monthly to opposite party no.2 and the applicant should take note of the specific amount which is due and admissible against him as per the original judgment passed by the family Judge. However, the recovery warrant should specify with certainty as to what amount is to be realized as it does not contain any description regarding any specific amount of maintenance to be paid.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case in order to ensure justice to both the sides it is provided that in case the applicant appears before the lower Court concerned and moves application then the same shall be duly considered without causing unnecessary delay within a period of 15 days and appropriate maintenance amount will be indicated to the applicant and upon such information/intimation, the applicant is required to handover/deposit the maintenance amount either with the Court concerned or to pay it by way of D.D. or cheque to the opposite party no.2 and he will continue to pay monthly allowance as such without any default.

For a period of two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken pursuant to recovery warrant dated 02.05.2021 provided applicant appears and moves proper application as directed to him. In case of non-compliance the court below shall proceed further with caution that the amount of maintenance specific should be specifically disclosed therein.

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 11.7.2022

S.Verma