Himanshu vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4854 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13602 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Himanshu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

The applicant in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is seeking quashing of the interim maintenance order dated 24.03.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Case No.380 of 2019 (Smt. Archana Vs. Himanshu) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at police station Highway, District Mathura.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2. The marriage between the two was solemnized on 18.04.2018. Thereafter some dispute arose between them on account of which the opposite party no.2 to harass the applicant filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Judge, Mathura on 18.05.2019 in which applicant filed an objection on 04.02.2020 but the learned court below passed the impugned order directing the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of order.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the court below has passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the applicant as well as of the opposite party no.2, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the court below, which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The total amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.5000/- for the opposite party no.2, which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succor to her, who is entitled to get the maintenance which has been wrongly denied by the applicant. The fact that applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2, has not been denied.

In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

In view of the above, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.6.2022

Gaurav