Court No. - 66

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39410 of 2022

Applicant :- Atul Kumar Dubey

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar

Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant

and the learned A.G.A. for State.

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

challenging order dated 4.11.2022, passed by Principal Judge,

Family Court, Deoria, in Maintenance Petition No. 910 of 2022

(Pakankshi Tripathi Vs. Atul Kumar Dubey) whereby

application for interim maintenance filed by opposite party-2 in

aforementioned case has been allowed and the applicant has

been directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.

7,000/- to complainant/opposite party-2 from the date of

application.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that order impugned in

present application is manifestly illegal and without

jurisdiction. Court below has allowed the application for

interim maintenance without recording any finding with regard

to income of applicant and whether opposite party-2 is residing

separately on sufficient grounds or not. Moreover the amount of

monthly maintenance awarded in favour of opposite party-2 is

harsh and excessive against applicant. As such, order impugned

cannot be sustained and therefore liable to be quashed by this

Court.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present

application. He submits that it is an undisputed fact that

opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant.

Marriage of parties was solemnized on 11.12.2020. However,

on account of conduct of applicant, opposite party was forced to

reside separately. There is nothing on record to show that

applicant has been maintaining his wife since then. As such,

applicant has failed to discharge his moral and legal obligation.

Referring to the impugned order, learned A.G.A. submits that

no documentary evidence was filed by applicant before Court

below with regard to his ailment or regarding his income.

Applicant is in possession of best evidence. But for reasons best

known to applicant same was deliberately concealed from Court

below. Applicant is an engineer in a private company. Amount

of maintenance must commensurate with the status of parties.

When impugned order is examined in the light of above, it

cannot be said that impugned order is perverse or erroneous.

Moreover arrangement made by Court below is interim in

nature and shall abide by the final result of the case. Applicant

is paying maintanance to his legally wedded wife.

When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant

could not overcome the same.

In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be

dismissed.

It is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.1.2023

Arshad

Digitally signed by :-

ARSHAD MAHMOOD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad