Naveen Goswami vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4856 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13442 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Naveen Goswami
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel the applicant, Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned A.G.A. - I for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 352 of 2018 (Urvashi vs. Naveen), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar has directed to the applicant to pay the school fees to his elder daughter.

Learned Additional Advocate General 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.

Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below, which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The direction of the court below to pay the school fees to his elder daughter cannot be denied. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and his daughter and provide some succour to them, who are 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 lacks merit and stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.6.2022

SA