Allahabad High Court
Arun Gaur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 June, 2024
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:103657 Court No. - 45 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4615 of 2024 Petitioner :- Arun Gaur Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the Judgement and order dated 05.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, District Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2023, Computerised Registration No. 143 of 2023 CNR No. UPGZ010164082023 (Arun Gaur Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of Domestic Violence Act has been partly allowed as well as order dated 27.07.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Case No. 0417 of 2022 under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Khora, District Ghaziabad by which the interim maintenance application filed by the respondent no.2 has been allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has deserted the petitioner inspite of the fact, that the petitioner gave full respect and regard to the respondent no.2 but all in vain. He further submits that the respondent no.2 on false and bald allegations filed an application under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad along with an application for interim maintenance against which the petitioner filed an objection denying the averments made in the interim maintenance but the learned Magistrate, instead of considering the objection filed by the petitioner has allowed the interim maintenance application under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act by which, the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent no.2, which is too excessive without considering the income of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.2 possessed M.B.A. degree and is doing job by which she earns Rs. 35,000/- per month, thus she was not entitled for any maintenance whereas, on the other hand, petitioner is suffering from epilepsy and his treatment is going on in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner has enough liability upon his shoulder thus he is not in a position to pay excessive amount of interim maintenance to the respondent no.2, inspite of the same, the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay exorbitant amount of interim maintenance and being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner was constrained to prefer an appeal before the appellate Court being its Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2023 (Arun Kumar Gaur Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, District Ghaziabad vide Judgement and order dated 05.01.2024 partly allowed the appeal directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month as interim maintenance in place of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Learned counsel further argued that the appellate Court too did not consider the appeal of the petitioner in correct perspective and therefore, the Judgement and order passed by learned Appellate Court so far as relates to not allowing the appeal in toto, is illegal, arbitrary, thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside by this Court.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the the State has contended that the impugned orders are perfectly legal, just and proper and therefore the same do not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. Perusal of the impugned Judgement and order dated 05.01.2024 shows that the learned appellate Court after considering the entire factual and legal aspect of the matter passed the impugned Judgement and order. In the current scenario, where the inflation rate is too excessive, inspite of the same, the appellate Court has reduced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month which cannot be said to be excessive and disproportionate taking into account the monthly salary of the petitioner by the concerned trial Court, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal infirmity in the orders impugned which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.6.2024 S.Ali/TS