AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA, Sri Shashi Kumar.
By means of this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has challenged an order dated 6.1.2006 passed by CJM, Bareilly in Case Crime No. 8166 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS Manila Thana, district Bareilly, whereby the applicant was directed to Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife, Smt. Anju, opposite party No. 2, as per the order of this High Court dated 11.5.2005 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4954 of 2004.
Learned counsel submits that as per the order of this Court, the order was to stay the arrest of the applicant till the submission of the charge-sheet and he was to pay Rs. 1500/ per month till that period only. He points out that the charge-sheet in the case has been submitted and cognizance taken. The applicant has surrendered and obtained a bail order dated 29.7.2005 from the court below, still the obligation to continue to pay the said amount is being enforced by the learned Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Gir Prasad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 250 which has disapproved of the orders of this Court directing payment of monthly amount by way of interim compensation and staying of arrest on that ground.
It is contended by the learned AGA that no useful purpose would be served in calling for a counter affidavit and keeping this matter pending in this Court which may be disposed of on perusal of the application.
This application is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the learned Magistrate should not realize any further amount in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 6.1.2006.
However, any amount already paid by the applicant to his wife should not be recovered from her.