Allahabad High Court
Arvind Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17181 of 2021
Applicant :- Arvind Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Rai,Ali Jamal Khan,Navneet Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajneesh Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Ali Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Ghazipur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 657 of 2019 (Pooja Maurya Vs. Arvind Singh) as well as judgment and order dated 06.04.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Second, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020 (Arvind Singh Vs. Pooja Maurya).
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2 and their marriage was solemnized on 25.11.2003. From their wedlock, one male child, namely, Avanish was born who is presently aged about 14 years. Opposite party no. 2 moved an application dated 18.10.2019 U/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with an application dated 17.03.2020 under Section 23(1) Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month. In the said application, it is mentioned that the applicant who is her husband is posted as Senior Engineer in Ericsson Global India Services Pvt. Ltd., Nahej Boulward, Noida and is getting salary of more than Rs. 1 lac but he is neither giving any maintenance nor maintaining her. It is also mentioned that even he is not giving school fee, etc. of his son Avanish. In the said proceeding, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Ghazipur passed an order dated 27.11.2020 allowing the application bearing No. 9B dated 17.3.2020 of opposite party no. 2 under Section 23 (1) Domestic Violence Act directing the applicant to pay an interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month on 10th day of each month. The said order dated 27.11.2020 was challegned before the appellate court but same has been dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that apart from the proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, opposite party no. 2 has also lodged the first information report against the applicant as Case Crime No. 345 of 2019 under Section 323, 504, 498A IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur in which charge-sheet was submitted on 14.11.2019. The applicant has challenged the said charge-sheet dated 14.11.2019 by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 790 of 2022 in which the matter has been referred to Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2022 of the coordinate Bench of this Court and the same is pending. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 2 has moved an application under Domestic Violence Act concealing the correct fact giving bad picture of the applicant in the eyes of the authorities as well as before the Court concerned. Opposite party no. 2 with malafide intention made a complaint at the workplace of the application making bald allegation against him to ruin his social and professional life and alleging that the applicant holds fake degree and fake educational papers. On this, the Company warned the applicant to keep his professional and personal life separate and re-verified all the documents of the applicant and found all the allegations false and baseless.
On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is argued that under the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get maintenance from the applicant as directed in the impugned order dated 27.11.2020.
On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 refuting the said submissions of learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no dispute that the applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2, therefore, it is his duty to maintain her but till date, no amount of maintenance has been given by him. It is also pointed out that the applicant has also filed a complaint bearing Criminal Case No. 7688 of 2020 against opposite party no. 2 Pooja and her family members regarding defamation caused to the applicant by them in which opposite party no. 2 and her family members have been summoned vide order dated 24.02.2021.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that applicant is husband of the opposite party no. 2 and till date he has not paid any amount towards maintenance to the opposite party no. 2, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 and 06.04.2021.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
However, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Ghazipur is directed to decide Misc. Criminal Case No. 657 of 2019 (Pooja Maurya Vs. Arvind Singh) expeditiously in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of six months from today. It is also directed that the parties concerned shall not seek unnecessary adjournment.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022
Shubham
