Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14702 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manish @ Ashutosh Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Mani Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has come up complaining that he has been non- suited inspite of the obstinate attitude of his wife respondent no.2 in whose favour the petitioner has disposed of his personal property and is regularly being deprived of 60% of the salary. The respondent no.3 is the daughter born out of said wedlock.
In the writ petition it has been categorically stated that the petitioner signed on a compromise deed before the Lok Adalat which was under some pressure and in terms thereof the petitioner transferred his ancestral agricultural property at village Pasikheda, district Kanpur Nagar in favour of the respondent no.2 to honour the terms of settlement.
There were some dues relating to the maintenance amount awarded in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that was challenged according to the petitioner in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court as stated in paragraph no.13 which was rejected.
The petitioner has also filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4494 of 2013 questioning the status of the compromise as well as other reliefs.
The recovery certificate for realization of maintenance which has been set into motion dated 30.08.2017 has now been challenged through the present writ petition.
From the narration of the facts above it is evident that the petitioner is employed and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner he is a Class IV employee in Pt Beni Singh Inter College, Bari-bhitar Gaon, district Kanpur Nagar.
The nature of the reliefs as claimed arise purely out of a matrimonial dispute. Any award of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is of an interim measure subject to any such proceedings that may be undertaken before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.
This would also be dependent upon the terms of the alleged compromise which the petitioner is seeking to question as stated in the writ petition through another Writ Petition No.4494 of 2013 which is pending.
In our opinion the recovery is consequential and therefore if the petitioner is seeking any such relief he can always pray for amendement in the pending writ petition itself which shall be subject to appreciation by the Court concerned in accordance with law about which we have no comments to make. In the background aforesaid we do not find this to be a case warranting entertainment under Article 226 of the Constituiion of India at this stage. The writ petition is consigned to records with the said observations.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 R./