Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1351 (ALL)

Ram Saroj v. State of U. P.

2023-05-18

SHAMIM AHMED

body2023
JUDGMENT : SHAMIM AHMED, J. 1. Heard Sri Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tilak Raj Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Court No. 1, Bahraich in Case No. 128/11/19 under Section 128 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party No. 2-Smt Vimla Devi filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance which was allowed by order dated 31.08.2006 by which Rs. 1200/- was fixed as maintenance from the date of hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that against the order dated 31.08.2006 the applicant-husband filed Revision bearing No. 769 of 2006: Ram Saroj Vs. Smt Vimla Devi, before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich, which was allowed vide order dated 02.11.2007 and the order dated 31.08.2006 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the court below to decide the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2007 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Criminal Revision No. 769 of 2006, the opposite party No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2010, Vimla Devi vs. Sate of U.P. and Others before this Court and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a detailed judgment dated 13.12.2018 disposed of the revision, set aside the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 769 of 2006 and affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 252 of 2006 on 31.08.2006. The operative portion of the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 769 of 2006 is being quoted herein-below: “In the totality of circumstances, there was no sufficient reason warranting the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate, thereby awarding maintenance @ Rs. 1200/- per month to the wife. The impugned judgment accordingly cannot be allowed to stand and, therefore, the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 769 of 2006 on 02.11.2007 is hereby set aside. The judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case no. 252 of 2006 on 31.8.2006 is hereby affirmed. With these observations, this Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2010 is hereby disposed of.”` 6. The judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case no. 252 of 2006 on 31.8.2006 is hereby affirmed. With these observations, this Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2010 is hereby disposed of.”` 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that thus the order dated 31.08.2006 passed in Criminal Case No. 252 of 2006 was affirmed, thereafter the opposite party No. 2-wife moved an application for recovery of the entire arrears amount since 31.08.2006, thereafter the court below vide order dated 20.12.2022 giving relaxation not to pay entire arrears at once directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. 7. Learned A.G.A. whereas opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the present case filed by the applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of law and his intention is very clear that he is not intent to pay single penny to his wife. Only some marginal amount of Rs. 1500/- and 2500/- has been paid without any order, thus the application is liable to be dismissed and the court below may be directed to recover the entire amount within two months. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, this Court is of the view that order of maintenance of Rs. 1200/-per month to the opposite party No. 2-Smt. Vimla Devi vide order dated 31.08.2006, which was challenged by filing the Revision and the said revision was allowed vide order dated 02.11.2007 and the order dated 31.08.2006 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the court below to decide the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision before this Court and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a detailed judgment and order dated 13.12.2018 allowed the revision and affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 252 of 2006 on 31.08.2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 769 of 2006. Thus, the maintenance is due from the date of order dated 31.08.2006 and the applicant was not paying the arrears amount, in spite of the fact that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.12.2022 relaxed the applicant in making the payment in one stock directed to pay Rs. Thus, the maintenance is due from the date of order dated 31.08.2006 and the applicant was not paying the arrears amount, in spite of the fact that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.12.2022 relaxed the applicant in making the payment in one stock directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-per month, that too was not paid by the applicant to opposite party No. 2 and the present application has been filed. Thus, in view of the Court it is nothing but an abuse of process of the law and the applicant is passing the time by filing the present petition and is not intending to pay the amount, as directed by the court below or by the order passed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2018, thus the intention of the applicant appears to be very clear that he is avoiding to pay maintenance to his wife. 9. This Court has to see the question of equity and equity goes in favour of opposite party No. 2-wife, who is deprived for the payment since 2006, when the order was passed on the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. In the interest of justice, the court concerned is directed to recover the entire amount of arrears, due against the applicant, within two months from today and proceed in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations/directions, this petition is dismissed. 12. Let the copy of this order be sent to the court below for its necessary compliance.