Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:105961
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10767 of 2024
Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Nath Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. Applicant before this Court is aggrieved by an order dated 06.01.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being Case No. 121 of 2022 whereby Rs. 7000/- is fixed to opposite party no.2 as an interim maintenance.
3. Learned counsel submits that applicant is already paying Rs. 7000/- per month in proceedings under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act which has already been confirmed till this Court; he further submits that applicant has been burdened twice and this fact has not been correctly appreciated and he refers a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
4. In order to appreciate above referred submissions, I have perused impugned order and relevant part thereof is quoted below :-
"????????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? 50000/-????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? 5000/- ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? 20,000/- ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? 1705/2021 ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? 7000/- ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? 6,000/-????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? 24 ?????? ????? ??????? ??? 7000 /- ????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? 7,000/- ????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ? ???? ????????? ???? ??' ?????? ???"
5. As referred above, trial Court has taken note that applicant is paying Rs. 7000/- per month in proceedings initiated under Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that trial Court has further taken note of contention of applicant that he is only receiving Rs. 6000/- per month is not supported by any material, therefore, trial Court, despite that applicant is already paying Rs. 7000/-, has passed order of interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/-. It is not in dispute that above order is only an interim order and applicant has all liberty to produce documents and material in support of his contention that he is earning very less amount from his occupation as well as opposite party no.2 is earning from tailoring job.
6. At this stage, without any material of actual income of applicant, this Court cannot interfere in impugned order and taking note that impugned order is only an interim maintenance order and all legal contentions still could be raised before trial Court, therefore, while rejecting prayers made in this application, this application is disposed of with an observation that trial Court will take all endeavour to expedite further proceedings and will consider material so produced by applicant and opposite party no.2 during trial.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
N. Sinha
