Allahabad High Court
Ajay Tyagi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100877
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3211 of 2023
Revisionist :- Ajay Tyagi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Mehrotra,Suyash Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the revision-applicant and Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Invoking the revisional power of this Court as vested under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicant who is husband of opposite party has questioned the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Meerut in Case No.777 of 2020, granting Rs.20,000/- per mensem as an interim maintenance to be paid to the opposite party whereas final relief itself was Rs.20,000/- per mensem as per maintenance application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure-1 to the revision).
3. Thus, it is argued by learned counsel for the revision-applicant that the Family Court concerned was not justified in granting final relief at the stage of interim relief as this amounted to wrongful exercise of jurisdiction so vested in law calling for interference by this Court under its revisional power.
4. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the revision-applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the maintenance application filed as Anenxure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application of this revision application in which final relief prayed for was Rs.20,000/- per mensem w.e.f. 13.07.2020.
5. Sri Mehrotra contends that contrary to it, interim maintenance application pending disposal of maintenance application was also filed in which a higher amount to the tune of Rs.25,000/- was claimed. This application was filed on 28.07.2022. He further argues that while granting interim maintenance, pending disposal of the maintenance application, the court concerned has not assigned any special reason for awarding Rs.20,000/- as a maintenance amount to the opposite party except citing a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court where the protection of wife was to be safeguarded as was observed in the first instance. He submits that if the interim relief directed by the Principal Judge, Family Court is sustained, then nothing further remains to be decided in the matter of maintenance.
6. Sri Mehrotra further submits that the revision-applicant is ready to pay Rs.10,000/- per mensem till final disposal of maintenance application. The applicant has already paid Rs.50,000/- by now under the order impugned and the applicant will be paying back the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- to be calculated at the rate of Rs.10,000/- monthly on or before 20.06.2024. He submits before the Court that given an opportunity to deposit as such, he would not have any objection for a direction to be issued by this Court for disposal of maintenance case in a time bound period as the pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.
7. Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, learned Advocate though initially opposed this revision petition but on the pointed query being made as to whether in the original application maintenance prayed for was Rs.20,000, he could not dispute the same. However, he claims that normally 1/4th of the salary is directed to be paid towards the maintenance.
8. Ultimately, Sri Tripathi agrees to Rs.10,000/- if paid and direction is issued for disposal of maintenance application within a prescribed period preferably not exceeding 3-4 months. He also does not dispute that parties have exchanged their pleadings in the maintenance case.
9. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction that petitioner would be paying Rs.10,000/- per mensem as an interim maintenance to the opposite party till final judgment is passed in maintenance petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
10. The maintenance amount as directed by the court concerned in its order dated 03.05.2023, is reduced to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.20,000/- and calculating as such, if Rs.50,000/- has been paid, petitioner would be depositing Rs.70,000/- as remaining amount on or before 20.06.2024 before Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Meerut which shall be released in favour of the opposite party forthwith.
11. In the event such deposit is made by the applicant, the Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Meerut will ensure to decide the maintenance application itself within a further period of three months of-course after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.
12. However, it is made clear that in the event of default in payment as directed hereinabove, it will remain open for the Family Court concerned to proceed to recover the amount in terms of order passed by it dated 03.05.2023.
Order Date :- 3.6.2024
P Kesari
