CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2005) 09 AHC CK 0266

Smt. Minshi vs State of U.P., Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court No. 3), Vth Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Haridwar Yadav

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 September 2005

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.C. Deepak, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2457 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 329 words

R.C. Deepak, J.—The present petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 8.10.2001 and 13.3.2003 passed by the courts below refusing the maintenance allowance to the petitioner.

2.

Heard Sri A.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

3.

The prayer for awarding maintenance allowance to the petitioner has been refused by the courts below on the ground that the petitioner is not having the company of her husband without an reasonable cause, but the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.75/- in favour of her minor daughters named Priyanka and Sanju was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 16.8.1991 in case No. 703 of 1990. The petitioner filed revision No. 181 of 1994, but the revision was not pressed as the parties had entered into compromise dated 22.6.1996 (annexure-2) to live together. The respondent did not act upon the compromise and he dragged his wife from his house. The wife filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which is under challenge.

4.

The subsequent application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. ought to have been treated as an application to enforce the compromise dated 22.6.1996, but the courts below committed gross illegality in treating the same as fresh application and dismissed the same being barred as res-judicata.

5.

In view of the discussions made above, the orders dated 8.10.2001 and 13.3.2003 passed by the courts below are hereby set-aside and the learned magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter, examine the circumstances under which the petitioner was dragged out from her in-laws'' house and after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, pass a fresh and proper order in light of the observations made above and till the disposal of the proceeding, the respondent No. 4 Haridwar Yadav shall pay Rs.500/- per month as interim maintenance allowance to the petitioner.

6.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.