Allahabad High Court
Ranjan Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 June, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Order reserved on : 18.2.2020. Order delivered on : 11.6.2020. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26406 of 2017 Applicant :- Ranjan Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chetan Chatterjee Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to partly set-aside the order dated 3.6.2017 passed by Family Court / Fast Track Court, Court No.13, District Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 449 of 2016 (Ranjan Gupta Vs. Smt. Roopali and others). Further prayer has been made to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order.
None present for opposite parties no.2 to 4.
Heard Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that maintenance order was passed on the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on 18.4.2011. Thereafter, application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was moved, which was partly allowed. Since opposite party no.2 remarried after the decree of divorce, maintenance order passed in respect of opposite party no.2 was quashed, however, maintenance order passed in respect of opposite parties no.3 and 4 remained intact. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party no.2 has also given in adoption the opposite party no.3 to one of her relatives, thus maintenance order passed in his respect is also illegal and the same cannot continue. It is further submitted that in Original Suit No.895 of 2012, opposite party no.2 herself has made statement that she will not claim maintenance for the children in future and will withdraw all the cases. It is further submitted that facts mentioned in the affidavit have not been controverted. Thus, it was submitted that application may be allowed and maintenance order passed in respect of opposite parties no.3 and 4 may also be quashed. It was further submitted that all the aforesaid facts were raised before the trial court, but the same were not considered.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and argued that compromise entered into between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 will not bind to the children who are minor because there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.
I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed ex-parte on 18.4.2011 fixing maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- each per month in favour of opposite parties no.2 to 4. It further appears that a Suit i.e. Original Suit No.895 of 2012 (Smt. Roopali Versus Rajan Mittal) was filed before the court below for divorce decree. It is also evident that the said Suit was decided in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties and marriage between the applicant and opposite party no.2 was dissolved. It further appears that after dissolution of marriage, opposite party no.2 remarried with some other person. It is also evident that thereafter one application under section 127 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant before the Magistrate concerned was partly allowed vide order dated 3.6.2017 (under challenge) whereby maintenance amount fixed in favour of the opposite party no.2 (wife) was set-aside, but maintenance amount fixed in favour of opposite parties no.3 and 4 (minor children) remained intact. While passing the impugned order, the court below was of the view that compromise entered into between the parties cannot bind the children. It further appears that after instituting the present application, notice was issued to opposite parties no.2 to 4 and it was served upon them, but they did not turn up nor any counter affidavit was filed. Applicant, in paragraph no.3 of the affidavit annexed with the present application, has clearly mentioned that opposite party no.2 has given in adoption the opposite party no.3 Master Shaurya to one of her relatives. Since, despite service of notice, this fact has not been controverted by the opposite party no.2, the submission raised on behalf of the applicant that status of the opposite party no.3 has changed after adoption and he is not the son of the applicant, therefore, the applicant will not be responsible to pay maintenance amount fixed in his favour. If the plea taken by the applicant is compared with the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, with this fact that facts mentioned in paragraph 13 has not been controverted by the opposite party no.2 despite service of notice, submission raised across the Bar regarding discontinuation of the maintenance passed vide order dated 18.4.2011 on the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of opposite party no.3 is liable to be accepted.
So far as maintenance order passed in respect of opposite party no.4 is concerned, she continues to be the daughter of the applicant. Mere compromise entered into between the applicant and opposite party no.2 on which basis divorce decree was passed, will not be sufficient to deprive her from the maintenance fixed in her favour by the court below on the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. Despite compromise arrived at between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and divorce decree passed in their favour, opposite party no.4 is still entitled for maintenance. Applicant is the father of opposite party no.4, thus the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer in respect of opposite party no.4. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, application is liable to be partly allowed. Maintenance order passed on 18.4.2011 on the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of opposite party no.3 Master Shaurya is liable to be discontinued and set-aside. Maintenance order passed in favour of opposite party no.4, for the reason discussed here-in-above, cannot be discontinued. Prayer made in this respect is liable to be refused.
Accordingly, present application is allowed in part. Maintenance order passed on 18.4.2011 on the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of opposite party no.3 Master Shaurya is hereby discontinued and set-aside. However, maintenance order passed in favour of opposite party no.4 shall continue.
Order dated : 11.6.2020.
ss