Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9489 of 2018 Applicant :- Rijwan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.
This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to challenge the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Case No. 9/11 of 2015 (Ishrat Vs. Rizwan) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which interim maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to her daughter has been awarded by the learned court below, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a manual labourer and therefore the award of interim maintenance allowance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month (in all) made against him is excessive and arbitrary.
Having perused the application and order passed by the learned court below, I find that the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been instituted against the applicant in the year 2015 which had remained pending for almost two years before the order awarding interim maintenance allowance came to be passed.
The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. exists as a measure of social justice to preserve human life and dignity.
Since the proceedings have remained pending for unduly long period of time, the learned court below has not committed any error in awarding interim maintenance during the pendency of those proceedings. Such a measure was necessary to preserve life and dignity of the opposite party no. 2 and her daughter and to prevent vagrancy.
As to the amount of maintenance allowance awarded, it is not disputed that the applicant is an able bodied person. Even if, it is accepted that he is working as a manual labourer, keeping in mind the current wages of the manual labourer are between Rs. 250-350 per day, the award of interim maintenance is neither excessive nor arbitrary.
It is then seen that the applicant has not complied any part of the impugned order dated 20.04.2017, the instant application is disposed of with the following directions:
1. Subject, to the applicant continuing to pay the monthly maintenance allowance from the period April, 2018 onwards as and when it becomes due, in the manner provided by the court below under the impugned award, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant.
2. The applicant shall further pay Rs. 36,000/- towards arrears of the interim maintenance allowance for the period April, 2017 to March, 2018 in two instalments of Rs. 18,000/- each being first on or before 23.04.2018 and the second/last on or before 23.05.2018 respectively.
All the amounts if deposited by the applicant in the Court below shall be released to the opposite party no. 2 forthwith.
However, it is made clear that in the event of failure on part of the applicant to comply with any part of the order, coercive measures be revived from that stage without any further reference to this Court and recoveries be made from the applicant in compliance of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid compliance, the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of applicant complies with this order in entirety and their remains no default.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Lbm/-