Dhani Ram vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3907 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12159 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Dhani Ram
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Ojha
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the recovery warrant dated 11.11.2021, issued by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Case No. 2650 of 2017, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned recovery warrant is illegal and in fact the applicant has already deposited substantial part of arrears of maintenance. It was stated that due to some family problem, applicant could not deposit some of the maintenance and that out of total amount of Rs. 3,34,000/-, the applicant has already deposited Rs.1,34,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances, the impugned recovery warrant be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application.

Perusal of record shows that applicant was directed to pay the maintenance @ of Rs. 1000/- per month to opposite party no.2 vide judgment and order dated 31.07.2003, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura and that later on by order dated 29.5.2017, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Case No. 119/XII/2015, under Section 127 Cr.P.C., the amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month for opposite party no.2 and her minor son. It appears that as the applicant has not paid the entire amount of maintenance, thus, for realization of the arrears of maintenance, the Court below has issued recovery warrants. It may be observed here that the order by which direction was made to issue recovery warrant has not been placed on record nor the same is being challenged and in fact it is a letter dated 03.11.2022 which has been sent by the court below to District Magistrate, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan for recovery of arrears of maintenance of Rs. 2,79,000/-, which is being impugned in the present application. When the applicant is not challenging the order by which direction of issuance of recovery warrant was made, the said letter issued by the Court to District Magistrate for recovery of arrears of maintenance, cannot be quashed. In view of these facts it cannot be said that the court below has committed error any patent illegality or perversity in issuing letter to the concerned authority for realization of arrears of maintenance. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the matter.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is misconceived, hence rejected.

Order Date :- 24.5.2022

A. Tripathi