Allahabad High Court
Dr. Anil Pal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 May, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12048 of 2022 Applicant :- Dr. Anil Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohan Kant Baghel,Abhay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 13.01.2022, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad in Case No.567/2020 (Smt. Pratima Baghel and another Vs. Dr. Anil Pal), under Section 125 CrPC, P.S. Matsaina, District Firozabad, whereby, the opposite party no.2 has been awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month and opposite party no.3 has been awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month, against the applicant.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of opposite party no.2 and they have one child. The opposite party no.2 has filed the above stated case under Section 125 CrPC, making false an baseless allegations. Learned counsel submitted that by the impugned order, the trial court has granted interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2/wife and @ Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3/son. It is submitted that the quantum of interim maintenance granted to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is quite excessive and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that in fact the opposite party no.2 is working as a teacher and she is earning Rs.25,000/- per month and thus, she is not entitled for any interim maintenance. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is working as a Medical Officer and his salary is Rs.92,296/- but he has several other responsibilities. It has been submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that applicant is working as a Medical Officer in Government Hospital and that in view of his position and his salary, the interim maintenance granted to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 cannot be said excessive or arbitrary.
Perusal of record shows that by the impugned order, the opposite party no.2 has been awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month and the opposite party no.3, who is son of applicant, has been awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month. The proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, are pending before the court below for final adjudication and thus, the applicant may put his case before the court below at appropriate stage. It is not in dispute that applicant is husband of opposite party no.2 and he is working as Medical Officer in government hospital and his salary is Rs.92,296/- per month. The object of the provisions of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and the court is empowered to award interim maintenance on the basis of averments of parties and prima satisfaction. At the stage of interim maintenance main consideration is that there is positive averment that wife was unable to maintain herself and that the husband has sufficient means to maintain her. In view of the position and income of applicant, it cannot be said that the award of interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the son is excessive or arbitrary. The defence of applicant that opposite party no.2 is working as a teacher and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, cannot be examined by this Court in these proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, particularly, when the court below is yet to decide the matter finally and that so far only interim maintenance has been awarded to the opposite party no.2 and 3. After perusing the impugned order, it cannot be said that the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the court below is excessive or arbitrary. Here, it may be mentioned that power under Section 482 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases, where, exercise of such extra-ordinary power is require to prevent the abuse of process of law to secure the ends of justice. In the instant matter, no patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order.
In view of aforesaid, it is apparent that instant application under Section 482 CrPC has no substance. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 CrPC is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Neeraj