SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 9177

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
AJAY PRATAP SINGH YADAV – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
A482/22665/2022



Court No. - 64

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22665 of 2022

Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Yadav

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Singh Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri P.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Additional Principal

Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 1378 of 2019 (Smt. Sangeeta Yadav and

Another Vs. Ajay Pratap Singh Yadav) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. At present, the learned

court below has provided for interim maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- from the date of the order

(and not the application).

3. Submission is, the opposite party no.2 has claimed maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month.

At the interim stage itself, the learned court below has awarded maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/-

per month. It is excessive. Also, the applicant has lost his job, subsequent to the order.

Therefore, he is unable to comply with the impugned order.

4. As to the status of the proceedings, it has been submitted, the same are pending at the stage

of evidence. They may take some time to conclude.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, there is no

principle that the award of interim maintenance must be much less then the final amount as

may be awarded. At present, the learned court below has considered the pay slip of the

applicant disclosing monthly income of Rs. 49,000/-. In that circumstance, the award of

interim maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary or

excessive.

6. As to the further submission of the applicant having lost his job, that change of

circumstance being subsequent to the order impugned, it is open to the applicant to seek

appropriate remedies in terms of Section 127 Cr.P.C., if just cause exists.

7. As to the pendency of the proceedings, it is desirable that the same may be conducted and

concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today subject to the

applicant filing of the order learned court below and further subject to the applicant

cooperating in those proceedings, such that he may not seek any adjournment.

8. With the aforesaid obervation, the present application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 13.1.2023

Ashutosh

Digitally signed by :-

ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top