# Puttul Sahani v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 951
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 10843 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/puttul-sahani-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47421
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power
-
Section
125
-
interim
maintenance - Provisions of Section 125 of
Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are
enacted to stop the vagrancy of a
destitute wife and provide some succour
to them, who are entitled to get the
maintenance which has been wrongly
denied. (Para -6)

Opposite party no.2 (wife) living separately from
applicant (Husband) - application of interim
maintenance - allowed by family court -
awarded Rs.2000/- per month to the wife -
Rs.1000/- per month to each children.(Para - 3)

HELD:-There is no illegality, impropriety and
incorrectness in the impugned order and also
there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
To meet the ends of justice, does not require
any interference. (Para - 7)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

## Text

9 All Puttul Sahani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
951
(supra) is of no assistance to the applicant,
more so when, the view taken in MMTC
Limited (supra) and Rangappa (supra) is
consistently followed by the Supreme Court in
subsequent
judgments
vis
Pulsive
Technologies (supra) and HMT Watches
Private Limited (supra) and in this backdrop
held that since a great deal of caution is
required in its exercise of extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Section 482, a defence of an
accused although may appear to be plausible
should not be taken into consideration for
exercise of such jurisdiction.

20. In the present case, facts are similar
and, therefore, when there are judgments of
Supreme Court rendered by Three Judges in
case of Modi Cements Private Limited
(supra) and Rangappa (supra), which have
been consistently followed and Supreme
Court in case of Raj Kumar Khurana (supra)
has not taken into consideration, law laid
down in case of Modi Cements Private
Limited (supra), judgment in case of Modi
Cements Private Limited (supra) will be a
binding precedent. Therefore, law laid down
in case of Raj Kumar Khurana will be no
assistance to the applicant and similarly law
laid down by Karnatak High Court in case of
Amzad Pasha (supra) ignoring judgment of
Supreme Court in case of Rangappa (supra)
whereby
judgment
and
order
dated
16.10.2005 of the High Court Karnataka
Bengaluru has been upheld, whereby High
Court of Karnataka reversed the finding of
acquittal made by learned JMFC, judgment
of High Court passed oblivious of the law
laid down in case of Rangappa (supra), which
is a Supreme Court judgment too will be of
no assistance to the applicant.

21. Needless to say that judgment of
co-ordinate Bench in case of Rahisuddin
Saifi (supra) will also be of no assistance to
the applicant, inasmuch as, it has failed to
take into consideration law prior to and
subsequent to Raj Kumar Khurana (supra)
rendered by Three Judges' Bench of
Supreme Court having a binding precedent.

22. Allahabad High Court in case of
Deepak Goel v. State of U.P., (2013) 82
ACC 210 also held that in view of the
judgment of Supreme Court in case of
Modi Cements Private Limited (supra),
once a cheque is issued and on presentation
is dishonored, penal provision is attracted
as stopping of payment will not preclude an
action under Section 138 N.I. Act. A coordinate Bench of this Court considered
law laid down in case of Raj Kumar
Khurana (supra) and held it to be
distinguishable on facts.

23. Thus, in view of the above
judicial scrutiny and legal proposition of
law, though the presumption under Section
139 is rebuttable but it is for the trial court
to examine after evidence is led before it
and this is not a fit case to exercise extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

24. Application fails and is dismissed.
----------

(2021)09ILR A951
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 10843 of 2021

Puttul Sahani ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Khare

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power
-
Section
125
-
interim
maintenance - Provisions of Section 125 of
Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are
enacted to stop the vagrancy of a
destitute wife and provide some succour
to them, who are entitled to get the
maintenance which has been wrongly
denied. (Para -6)

Opposite party no.2 (wife) living separately from
applicant (Husband) - application of interim
maintenance - allowed by family court -
awarded Rs.2000/- per month to the wife -
Rs.1000/- per month to each children.(Para - 3)

HELD:-There is no illegality, impropriety and
incorrectness in the impugned order and also
there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
To meet the ends of justice, does not require
any interference. (Para - 7)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Khare,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. This application under Sections 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant
(husband) against the impugned judgement
and order dated 14.01.2020 passed by
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
No.01, Varanasi, in Case No.332 of 2015
(Smt. Mala Sahani Vs. Puttul Sahani),
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police
Station Bhelpur, District Varanasi, whereby
the application of the interim maintenance
has been allowed by the court below and
awarded Rs.2000/- per month to the wife
and Rs.1000/- per month to each children
from the date of order.

3. Submission made by the counsel
for the applicant is that the applicant is an
illiterate person and daily wager labour. He
is working as sailor and as such he is
unable to pay Rs.6000/- per month to the
wife and children. He further submitted that
the court below has not considered that the
opposite party no.2 (wife) is living
separately from the applicant without any
reasonable reason so she is not liable to
take maintenance from the applicant. After
recording the statements of the contesting
parties and without considering the facts
and evidence on record, the court below
allowed the application of opposite party
no.2 and awarded maintenance to the
opposite party no.2. The applicant made
several attempt to settle the dispute but all
in vain. He further submits that the
applicant is still ready to keep her wife and
children but she has not co-operated.

4. Per contra learned AGA has stated
that the court below has passed the
impugned order after considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and the
statements of the applicant and opposite
party no.2, in such circumstances to meet
the ends of justice does not required any
interference.
There
is
no
illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned order and also there seems to be
no abuse of court's process.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has
not been able to point out any such illegality
or impropriety or incorrectness in the
9 All Vertika Chitravanshi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
953
impugned order which may persuade this
Court to interfere in the same. The amount
fixed for maintenance was Rs.2000/- for the
wife and Rs.1000/- for the each child, which
in the present days of high price rise cannot
be
said
to
be
either
excessive
or
disproportionate. The provisions of Section
125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which
are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute
wife and provide some succour to them, who
are entitled to get the maintenance which has
been wrongly denied. The fact that the
applicant is the husband of respondent no.2
has not been denied.

7. In such circumstances to meet the
ends of justice, does not require any
interference.
There
is
no
illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned order and also there seems to be
no abuse of court's process.

8. In view of the above, the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks
merit and stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A953
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 11934 of 2021

Vertika Chitravanshi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Dhirendra Nath Srivastava, Sri Raj Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
jurisdiction - to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the section itself -
powers are to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice
for the administration of which alone the
Courts exist - Inherent powers are
coextensive with the text of the Code -
may be exercised only in respect of any of
the matters covered by the Code -
Expression "any Court" under the section
would refer to a Criminal Court - powers
are
to
be
exercised
in
relation
to
proceedings pending before or disposed of
by a Criminal Court .(Para - 6,8,10)

Proceedings u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - direction was issued to proceed ex
parte - date was fixed for evidence - aggrieved
by order passed by family court - present
application u/s 482 - quashing of. (Para - 2)

HELD:-
In the facts of the present case,
order having been passed in proceedings under
section 9 of the HMA, it would not be open to
the applicant to invoke the inherent powers of
this Court under section 482 of the Code,
seeking quashing of the aforesaid order.
Applicant does not dispute legal position with
regard to the ambit and scope of exercise of
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code and
does not wish to press the application. Para -
11,12 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

Emperor Vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC
18

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.
Sushma
Soni,
learned
Additional