Allahabad High Court
Veer Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17095 of 2022
Applicant :- Veer Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing order dated 21.5.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Crl. appeal No.42 of 2021 Veer Singh versus Smt. Mithilesh alias Gudia and others and order dated 5.11.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Crl. Case No.2395 of 2014 under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, district Shahjahanpur.
Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears for respondent No.2, although notice is duly served.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was given praying that respondent No.2 may be permitted to live with the applicant along with her minor daughter in government accommodation or in alternative, she may be given Rs.5000/- per month so that she may take accommodation for her as well as her minor child.The trial court vide impugned order dated 5.11.2019 has allowed the application given by respondent No.2 and directed as an interim measure that respondent No.2 shall live with the applicant in his government accommodation.
Against the said order dated 5.11.2019, a criminal appeal was filed by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Shahjahapur which was rejected vide judgment and order dated 21.5.2022. While rejecting the appeal, Sessions Judge has observed that neither the appellant Veer Singh is willing to reside with respondent No.2 in his government accommodation nor he is ready to give Rs.5000/- per month. On the contrary, the applicant/appellant has said that whatever maintenance is being provided by him, respondent No.2 should take accommodation in that amount.
After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that over and above the maintenance amount which is being provided by him, he is ready and willing to give Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.2 so that as prayed by her in her application under section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, she may take a separate accommodation on rent and reside there.
In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the applicant no further orders are required to be passed.
The petition is disposed of in view of categorical statement of learned counsel for the applicant with a direction that the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- in addition to the maintenance amount in the first week of every month till pendency of the proceedings before the trial court. The impugned orders are modified to the above extent.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022
kkb.
