Chandrajeet Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 17412 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139712
 
Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23182 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Chandrajeet Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant to quash the order dated 16.05.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Varanasi in Case No. 168 of 2022 (Kanchan Yadav vs. Chandrajeet Yadav), under Section 128 Cr.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi.

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by opposite party no. 2 was allowed ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Varanasi, therefore, the recovery warrant dated 16.05.2023 issued by learned Family Court is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that vide order dated 17.12.2021, applicant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the daughter of opposite party no. 2 towards maintenance on 15th day of each month but the said order has not been complied with by the applicant, therefore, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. dated 08.02.2022 for recovery of maintenance amount from 17.01.2019 to 17.12.2021 in which, recovery warrant has been issued against the applicant, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.05.2023.

Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that nothing is on record to indicate that applicant has complied with the order dated 17.12.2021 or the order dated 17.12.2021 has been stayed or set aside by any superior Court, hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 16.05.2023 whereby the recovery warrant has been issued against the applicant. Hence, no interference is required.

The application lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the opposite party no. 2 as well as concerned court below within a week.

Order Date :- 14.7.2023

Saurabh