Nempal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 300 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23329 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Nempal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Nempal with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the judgment and order dated 20.03.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Amroha in Case No. 92 of 2018, CNR No. UPJB020003522018 (Smt. Urmila Vs. Nempal) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Said Nagli, District Amroha.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the judgment and order dated 20.03.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Amroha in Case No. 92 of 2018, CNR No. UPJB020003522018 (Smt. Urmila Vs. Nempal) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Said Nagli, District Amroha, during the pendency of present application before this Hon'ble Court. And/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2021 the trial court has ordered the applicant to pay sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to his son from the date of application i.e. 04.04.2018. It is argued that the same is illegal and incorrect and the direction should have been passed for payment of the said amount of maintenance from the date of order which is 20.03.2021. It is further argued that even otherwise the amount as directed to be paid is disproportionate to the income of the applicant. There is no specific finding regarding the income of the applicant. The amount is excessive. It is argued that as such the same deserves to be reduced. No other arguments has been placed before the Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that in impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2021 the applicant has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- to his wife and Rs. 2,000/- to his son from the date of application i.e. 04.04.2018 and the same is in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha : 2021 (2) SCC 324. In so far as the quantum of amount is concerned, the Court has specifically dealt with the income of the applicant while disposing of the issue no. 4 and has returned a finding regarding the income of the applicant.

In these circumstances, looking to the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below, the present application under Section 482 is rejected.

Office to the communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today.

Order Date :- 4.1.2023

M. ARIF

(Samit Gopal, J.)