# Ram Saroj v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 194
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4919 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-saroj-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50446
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 125, 128 & 482: - Application
U/s 482 - challenging the order of Trial Court
passed u/section 128 of Cr.P.C. - for recovery of
entire amount of maintenance which was fixed by
court below as Rs. 1200/- per month u/section 125
of Cr.P.C. - against which applicant-husband filed a
Criminal Revision which was allowed and matter
remanded back to decide the application of 125
Cr.P.C. afresh - against which wife filed criminal
Revision before this Court, in which co-ordinate
Bench of this court set aside the order of revisional
court and affirm the order of court below passed
u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. by giving relaxation not to pay
the entire arrears at once, directed to pay Rs.
10,000/- per month - recovery - question of
equity - court finds that, applicant is not intended
to pay the amount of maintenance as directed by
the court below or by this court - held, it is nothing
but an abuse of process of the law and he is
passing time by filing the present petition to
avoiding to pay maintenance to his wife - hence,
this court has to see the question of equity and
equity goes in favour of wife - consequently,
direction issued to recover the entire amount of
arrears due against the applicant within two
months - petition is dismissed accordingly. (Para -
6, 8, 9, 10)

Application u/s 482 Dismissed. (E-11)

## Text

194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order the learned Additional Principal
Judge has given its concurrent finding that
as per the statement and evidence produced
by the opposite party No. 2 the applicant is
serving in a multinational company at
Bangalore and is earning eighty eight lakh
rupees per annum in the form of his salary,
thus, the interim maintenance amount fixed
by the learned Additional Principal Judge
cannot be said to be excessive or
disproportionate and the same can be said
to be a petty amount in view of huge salary
of applicant. The provisions of Section 125
of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which
are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a
destitute wife and to 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 opposite party no.2, has not
been denied.

7. In view of above, the impugned
order does not require any interference by
this Court. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is liable
to be dismissed.

8. Dismissed accordingly.

9. However, the court below is at
liberty to proceed regarding recovery of the
entire amount due in accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 194
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4919 of 2023

Ram Saroj ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rajesh Kumar Singh, Vijayendra Prakash
Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 125, 128 & 482: - Application
U/s 482 - challenging the order of Trial Court
passed u/section 128 of Cr.P.C. - for recovery of
entire amount of maintenance which was fixed by
court below as Rs. 1200/- per month u/section 125
of Cr.P.C. - against which applicant-husband filed a
Criminal Revision which was allowed and matter
remanded back to decide the application of 125
Cr.P.C. afresh - against which wife filed criminal
Revision before this Court, in which co-ordinate
Bench of this court set aside the order of revisional
court and affirm the order of court below passed
u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. by giving relaxation not to pay
the entire arrears at once, directed to pay Rs.
10,000/- per month - recovery - question of
equity - court finds that, applicant is not intended
to pay the amount of maintenance as directed by
the court below or by this court - held, it is nothing
but an abuse of process of the law and he is
passing time by filing the present petition to
avoiding to pay maintenance to his wife - hence,
this court has to see the question of equity and
equity goes in favour of wife - consequently,
direction issued to recover the entire amount of
arrears due against the applicant within two
months - petition is dismissed accordingly. (Para -
6, 8, 9, 10)

Application u/s 482 Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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
6 All. Ram Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
195
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. 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/-,
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.
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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. 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.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 196
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 1511 of 2010
connected with
Writ A No. 6943 of 2007
and other connected cases

Prabodh Kumar Pathak ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sameer Kalia, Akash Deep Dubey, Anuj
Singh, Ashish Verma, Deepak Srivastava,
Deepanshu Dass, Garima Chauhan, Lalta
Prasad Misra, Neel Kamal Mishra, Sarvesh
Kumar Dubey, Siddharth Nandan, Upendra
Nath Misra

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., P.K. Srivastava, Utsav Misra

A. Service Law - United Provinces Services
of Engineers (Building & Road Branch)