Allahabad High Court
Naseem Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 March, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31842 of 2017 Applicant :- Naseem Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad,Safiullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Irfan Ali Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
List revised. Learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA are present. But none is present for opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
On the request of learned counsel for the parties, Court is proceeding to decide the matter finally.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 10.5.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Case No. 1185/11 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C, P.S. Banna Devi, District Aligarh and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is second application under Section 125 CrPC, which is not maintainable. First application under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed for non-prosecution, as both parties did not appear before Court concerned, though, compromise had been entered into between the parties. It is also submitted that interim maintenance fixed in the matter is excessive and exorbitant. Applicant is simply a mechanic of sewing machine. He will not be in a position to pay such huge amount as fixed by Court concerned. Impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Interim maintenance fixed by Court concerned is reasonable one.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, application under Section 125 CrPC is pending before the Court concerned. First application moved under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed for non-prosecution. Court concerned has fixed Rs. 3,000/- to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1000/- each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 per month as interim maintenance. It is not in dispute that opposite no.2 is legally wedded wife of applicant and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are their children. Object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. A wife is also entitled to live with the befitting standard of husband. Thus keeping in view this fact that it is the duty of a husband to maintain his wife and also the fact that interim maintenance may be modified and altered at the time of final judgment no infirmity or illegality is found in the impugned order. No good ground is made out to interfere with the matter. The application lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The application is accordingly dismissed at this stage. However, Court concerned is directed to decide the petition under Section 125 CrPC expeditiously fixing short dates. Parties shall cooperate.
Order Date :- 3.3.2020/safi