Allahabad High Court
Prabhanjan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 January, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2802
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34126 of 2024
Applicant :- Prabhanjan Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Srivastava,Sarthak Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, in Court today, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 25.06.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Case No. 729 of 2017 (Seema Vs. Prabhanjan Singh), under Section - 125(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station - Jamalpur, District - Mirzapur, whereby a direction has been made by the family court to C.T.O. (Chief Treasury Officer) to deduct Rs. 14,000/- from pension of applicant and to transfer the same into bank account of opposite party no.2.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is husband of opposite party no.2 and that opposite party no.3 is their daughter. The opposite party no.2 has filed case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. against applicant, which was decided by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur vide judgment dated 11.08.2014 awarding total maintenance @ Rs.13,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and 3. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision (Criminal Revision No. 2958 of 2014) before this Court, wherein by order dated 28.11.2014, it was directed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court that till the next date the impugned order dated 11.08.2014 shall remain stayed, provided the applicant continues to pay Rs. 2,000/- to his wife and Rs. 5,000/- to his daughter from the date of judgment. Learned counsel submitted that meanwhile, the opposite party no.3 has been married and she is not entitled for any maintenance. By the impugned order, the direction of family court to deduct Rs. 14,000/- from his pension is against order of this Court passed in aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 2958 of 2014. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. Perusal of record shows that opposite party no.2 and 3 were awarded maintenance by the Family court vide order dated 11.08.2014. The opposite party no.2 was granted maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and the opposite party no.3 was granted maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. It appears that by order dated 28.11.2014, passed in Criminal Revision No. 2958 of 2014, this Court has directed that till next date i.e. 22.12.2014, the impugned order dated 11.08.2014 shall remain stayed provided the applicant continues to pay Rs. 2,000/- to his wife and Rs. 5,000/- to his daughter from the date of judgment of the court below and in case of default, Family court will be at its liberty to recover the entire maintenance amount in accordance with law. In the impugned order, the family court has made direction to Chief Treasury Officer to deduct Rs. 14,000/- from pension of applicant and to transfer the same into bank account of opposite party no.2. There is no such direction that amount of Rs. 14,000/- has to be deducted from the pension of applicant per month. The applicant has not brought on record the complete details of arrears of maintenance. The contention that the opposite party no.2 has since married, can not be considered in recovery proceedings under Section - 125(3)/128 Cr.P.C. In that regard applicant is free to file application under Section - 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of maintenance amount. There is nothing to indicate that the interim order dated 28.11.2014, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been further extended or not. Further, as the Criminal Revision No. 2958 of 2014 is still pending and if the order dated 28.11.2014 passed in that revision is not being complied with by the Family court, the applicant may raise its plea in that revision. In view of these facts and circumstances, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.
8. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
S Rawat
