Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14063 of 2018 Applicant :- Shakeel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karan Singh Yadav 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.
The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned recovery warrant dated 03.02.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 186 of 2007 (Smt. Parveen Vs. Shakeel) under Section 128 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi.
It has come on record that earlier by the order dated 05.11.1999 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 900/- per month has been awarded to the opposite party no.2.
In view of the aforesaid order, the opposite party no.2 appears to have filed an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. being Case No. 186 of 2007, claiming maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,800/- for the period from June, 2006 to May, 2007. Against those proceedings, the applicant appears to have filed an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 20631 of 2009, wherein the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 186 of 2007 had been stayed. Initially this Court entertained the aforesaid application had stayed the further proceeding under Section 128 Cr.P.C. However, it is also admitted that by the order dated 08.03.2017 the aforesaid 482 application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Similarly the opposite party no.2 appears to have filed another application being number as Case No. 31 of 2011 on 19.01.2011 claiming maintenance allowance for the period from 05.01.2010 to 04.01.2011 @ Rs. 800/- per month being Rs. 9,600/-. Those proceedings were also stayed by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2011 in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6524 of 2011. Then by order dated 13.11.2017 the aforesaid proceeding also came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
At present, it appears that recovery warrant has been issued against the applicant on 03.02.2018, in Case No. 186 of 2007.
Learned counsel for the applicant relies on a document claimed to be the Nikahnama of the opposite party no.2 disclosing that the said opposite party no.2 had re-married on 04.01.2007. A remedy was available to the applicant under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to seek modification on the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.on the basis of such Nikahnama. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. but the same came to be rejected.
In view of such statement made by learned counsel for the applicant, no interference is warranted in the present proceeding, which is merely a proceeding for execution of the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that has attained finality.
The present application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Lbm/-