# Siddarth Wardhan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 192
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4403 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siddarth-wardhan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50445
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 125 & 482 - Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Section - 12: -
Application U/s 482 - challenging the order of
Family Court, allowing the application of his wife
moved u/section 125 of Cr.P.C. to pay Rs.
18,000/- per month as maintenance - on the
ground that fixation of such high amount is
causing great hardship to the applicant-husband
- Quantum of maintenance - court finds that,
relation of applicant and his wife became
strange and he was not interested to keep her
wife and he wants to marry with another
woman - moreover, wife filed a case u/section
12 of Domestic Violence Act, wherein Trial court
passed an order granting maintenance of Rs.
42,000/- per month, but said amount is not paid
by the applicant which shows his malafide
intention - Held, the provisions of section 125
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 - Applicant is serving in a
multinational company and earning Rs. 88 lakh
rupees per annum as salary, thus, the amount
fixed by trial court as maintenance cannot be
said to be excessive or disproportionate -
hence, impugned order does not require any
interference - application is liable to be
dismissed.(Para - 6, 7)

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

## Text

192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commercial Court No. 2, so far as it rejects
the prayer made by the petitioner for
adducing additional evidence in the form of
copies of Arbitration Awards, is not
sustainable in law and it is liable to be
quashed.

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
the petition is partly allowed. The order
dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Commercial
Court No. 2, Lucknow in Arbitration Case
No. 923 of 2019 so far as it rejects the prayer
made by the petitioner for adducing
additional evidence in the form of copies of
Arbitration Awards, is quashed and the
application for submission of the additional
evidence in the form of the five arbitration
awards, which have already been filed by the
petitioner, is allowed. The Commercial Court
shall proceed to decide the application under
Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation
Act expeditiously, in accordance with the law,
after taking into consideration the aforesaid
additional evidence and after giving an
opportunity to the respondents to adduce
evidence in rebuttal of the additional
evidence.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 192
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4403 of 2023

Siddarth Wardhan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashish Kumar Singh, Anuj Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 125 & 482 - Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Section - 12: -
Application U/s 482 - challenging the order of
Family Court, allowing the application of his wife
moved u/section 125 of Cr.P.C. to pay Rs.
18,000/- per month as maintenance - on the
ground that fixation of such high amount is
causing great hardship to the applicant-husband
- Quantum of maintenance - court finds that,
relation of applicant and his wife became
strange and he was not interested to keep her
wife and he wants to marry with another
woman - moreover, wife filed a case u/section
12 of Domestic Violence Act, wherein Trial court
passed an order granting maintenance of Rs.
42,000/- per month, but said amount is not paid
by the applicant which shows his malafide
intention - Held, the provisions of section 125
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 - Applicant is serving in a
multinational company and earning Rs. 88 lakh
rupees per annum as salary, thus, the amount
fixed by trial court as maintenance cannot be
said to be excessive or disproportionate -
hence, impugned order does not require any
interference - application is liable to be
dismissed.(Para - 6, 7)

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

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri Diwakar Singh, the
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant for quashing of the order dated
12.04.2023 passed by the court of learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
No. 1, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 1961
of 2022, Smt. Shaleeni Singh Vs. Siddarth
6 All. Siddarth Wardhan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
193
Wardhan, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by
means of which the learned court while
allowing partly the said application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., has directed the
applicant to pay Rs. 18,000/- per month to
his wife-opposite party No. 2 from the date
of filing of application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. as maintenance.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the applicant is that Rs. 18,000/- per month
to the wife from the date of application has
been
fixed
as
maintenance.
Further
submission is that such high amount of
maintenance can be justified only after
looking into the merits of the case. The
provisions of maintenance is basically
meant to avoid the prospect of destitution
and vagrancy of ignored wife or children.
Learned counsel for the applicant has tried
to
elaborate
upon
the
economic
circumstances of the applicant and his other
obligations and liabilities and has tried to
show that fixation of such high amount is
causing great hardship to the applicant.
Counsel has also sought to place his
criticism against the impugned order on
various other grounds touching upon the
factual as well as legal aspects of the
matter.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. states that
the Court below passed the impugned order
after
considering
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
the
statements of the opposite party no.2, in
such circumstances to meet the ends of
justice, the impugned order does not
require any interference. The trial court has
passed the order dated 12.04.2023 as
maintenance to be paid by the applicant to
the opposite party No. 2. 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. From perusal of the impugned order
dated 12.04.2023 it is apparent that the trial
court has clearly stated this fact that as per
the allegations made in the application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. marriage of
applicant and the respondent No. 2 took
place on 05.04.2015 and since then she has
been meted to cruelty and torture as her inlaws were not satisfied from the dowry
given at the time of marriage and they used
to make demand of money for purchasing a
flat, on account of which she fell under
depression and met to brain hemorrhage
after only fifteen days of her marriage, on
account of which she became partially
paralyzed, but the applicant did not get her
medically treated by leaving her in the
hospital and went to his job, the opposite
party No. 2 was having no option but to
reside with her parents, but the applicant
did not given any money for his treatment
or maintenance. Thereafter, relations of
applicant and the opposite party No. 2
became strange and he was not interested to
keep her wife and he wants to marry with
another woman. Moreover, the opposite
party No. 2 filed a case under Section 12 of
the Domestic Violence Act bearing Misc.
Case No. 4288 of 2021 in which the court
concerned
passed
an
order
granting
maintenance of Rs. 42,000/- per month to
the opposite party No.2 but the said amount
is not being paid by the applicant to his
wife which shows his malafide intention.
Thereafter, the learned Additional Principal
Judge passed the impugned order dated
12.04.2023
by
allowing
partly
the
application
No.
Ga-4
for
interim
maintenance moved by the opposite party
No. 2 directing the applicant to pay Rs.
18,000/- per month until further orders on
tenth day of every month. In the impugned
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