Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 199 of 2019 Appellant :- Ray Sahab Respondent :- Meena Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Sohan Lal Yadav,Om Prakash Vishwakarma
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Re : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2019
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
6. Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Manish Himwan
Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 199 of 2019 Appellant :- Ray Sahab Respondent :- Meena Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Sohan Lal Yadav,Om Prakash Vishwakarma
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Vishwakarma, learned counsel for appellant.
2. This appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1984”) has arisen from judgment and order dated 05.01.2019 passed by Family Court/Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Jaunpur on the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”), whereby the Court below has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to his wife and Rs.2000/- per month for minor son.
3. Learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that appellant is a government servant, Class IV employee and his carry home salary is Rs.18000 to 20,000/- per month, which is mentioned in the order passed by the Court below. However, it is contended that appellant is already paying Rs.4000/- under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
4. But this fact is not correct as per averments contained in para 9 of affidavit accompanying stay application, which reads as under :
“9. That respondent also filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was ex-party allowed against the appellant without serving the notice, learned Court below ordered to pay Rs.4,000/- per month against which the appellant after came to know made an application under 226 Cr.P.C. and such ex-party order was recalled on deposit Rs.25,000/- and such application is still pending.”
5. The averment aforementioned clearly show that order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is already recalled and appeal is still pending, hence, contention advanced by learned counsel for appellant is apparently false.
6. In view thereof, we find no manifest error in the impugned judgment and award warranting any interference by this Court. Appeal lacks merit.
7. Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Manish Himwan