Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3740 (ALL)

Arvind Mathur v. State of U. P.

2016-11-17

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. as well as Sri S.R. Verma, learned counsel for the opposite parties are present. 2. Vide order dated 3.4.2014 the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre. The report dated 3.8.2014 submitted by the Mediation Centre indicates that the mediation had taken place on several dates and mediation has completed but no agreement was arrived at between the parties. 3. Present application has been filed for quashing further proceedings of Execution Case No. 44 of 2013, under Section 128 Cr.P.C. pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad and the order passed by Additional Family Judge/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14 dated 7.3.2013 passed in Maintenance Case No. 634 of 2010 and order dated 26.2.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, in Execution Case No. 44 of 2013. 4. A perusal of record reflects that the order dated 7.3.2013 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No. 634 of 2010, Smt. Geeta Kanaujia Vs. Arvind Mathur was never challenged by the applicant by filing revision before the appropriate Court and the same is being challenged in the present 482 application. When the amount pursuant to the order dated 7.3.2013 was not paid by the applicant, the opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 128 Cr.P.c. for recovery of the amount. By the impugned order dated 26.2.2014 after hearing the parties the applicant herein was directed to deposit the entire amount. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 has pointed out out that the applicant is working as Branch Manager in the Union Bank of India and there is no justifiable reason for not making payment and as per the order dated 7.3.2013 he is getting salary of Rs. 38,000/- per month and maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- in favour of Smt. Geeta Kanaujia and Rs. 2,000/- each in favour of two minor sons Honey and Anshu has been awarded. 6. The ground taken in the present application is that the court below has not considered the objection filed by the applicant before the court below in proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. that he is also paying an amount of Rs. 2,000/- each in favour of two minor sons Honey and Anshu has been awarded. 6. The ground taken in the present application is that the court below has not considered the objection filed by the applicant before the court below in proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. that he is also paying an amount of Rs. 5,000/- under the Domestic Violence Act as directed by the competent court vide its order dated 11.3.2011. Undisputedly this ground was available to the applicant prior to the passing of the order dated 7.3.2013 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It may be noticed that more than three and half years have already passed after the aforesaid order. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned herein. 8. This application is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.