Allahabad High Court
Kunj Bihari Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8495 of 2023
Applicant :- Kunj Bihari Pandey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri U.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 56 of 2020 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Haldi, District Ballia and also the ex-parte order dated 24.08.2021, recovery warrant dated 21.12.2021 as well as conditional arrest warrant dated 14.4.2022 issued in the present case and further prayer is made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application.
The facts arising out of the present case are that opposite party no. 2 Smt. Sumitra Devi is the mother of the applicant. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 28.1.2020 with the prayer that the applicant be directed to give her Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance, expenses for the litigation and Court expenses. The said case proceeded ex-parte and vide judgment and order dated 24.8.2021, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of opposite party no. 2 was allowed in part and the applicant was directed to pay her Rs. 10,000/- per month. Subsequently, an application dated 11.10.2021 was filed under Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C. by opposite party no. 2 with the prayer that respondent therein be directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to her.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the applicant is ready to keep his mother with him. It is argued that opposite party no. 2, who has filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., left the applicant out of her own sweet will and is not ready to live with him, hence the applicant is not liable to pay any maintenance to her. It is further argued that even otherwise, the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the amount of maintenance as awarded to be paid to opposite party no. 2 by the applicant is too excessive. The applicant has an intention to keep and maintain his mother with him with all respect, love and affection but she for the reason best known to her does not want to live with him. It is argued that the trial court has issued recovery warrant against the applicant and further the Officer of the department of the applicant has been directed by the trial Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 to deduct the salary of the applicant to the said extent and remit it to the Court for making payment to opposite party no. 2. It is argued that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. against ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.08.2021 which is pending disposal by the trial court. It is argued that appropriate direction be issued to the trial court to consider the same and decide it at the first instance and then press for any recovery or attachment of money from the salary of the applicant. It is further argued that the arrest warrant has been issued against the applicant vide order dated 14.04.2022 in purely mechanical manner without application of mind. It is argued that as such, the present application be allowed and the prayer made therein be granted.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the case and orders impugned.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that opposite party no. 2 is the mother of the applicant and applicant has been directed to pay maintenance to opposite party no. 2 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said case proceeded ex-parte. The applicant did not pay any amount as ordered by the trial court and application for enhancement of the amount of maintenance has been filed by opposite party no. 2. The applicant has also filed an application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. before the trial court. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant has complied with the judgment and order dated 24.8.2021 till date. Even otherwise, the judgment and order dated 24.8.2021 does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The same has been passed after considering the matter in detail. The proceedings were initiated ex-parte as the applicant did not appear before the trial court.
In view of the above, no ground for either for quashing the proceedings of the present case or the impugned orders, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, the prayer for quashing the same is rejected.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Office directed to communicate copy of this order to the trial court concerned within three weeks from today.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Shiraz
