Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38274 of 2018 Applicant :- Vinod And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Rahul Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Sri Ankur Singh Kushwaha, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 09.12.2016 and 25.08.2018 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. VI, Aligarh and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Aligarh, respectively in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2016 (arising out of complaint case no. 981 of 2014), as well as further proceedings of complaint case no. 981 of 2014 (Smt. Mamta @ Rama Vs. Vinod and others) under sections 12, 18, 19, 20 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-VI, Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the court below after receiving objection of the applicants proceeded with the case and by order dated 09.12.2016 allowed the application moved by opposite party no.2 and directed the applicant no.1 to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as interim maintenance to opposite party no.2 and to her three children and also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to opposite party no.2 as damages. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the court below while deciding the application moved by opposite party no.2 has not considered the financial condition and social status of both the parties as well as earning and paying capacity of the applicant no.1. Against the order dated 09.12.2016 the applicants preferred criminal appeal no. 311 of 2016 under section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Aligarh. The appellate court after hearing the counsel for the parties vide order dated 25.08.2018 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 09.12.2016. In the last it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the entire prosecution as setup by the opposite party no.2 is false, fabricated and concocted one.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants and submitted that the orders passed by the courts below are perfectly sound, therefore, they do not call for any interference by this Court.
I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
The impugned orders have been passed by the courts below after considering each and every aspects of the matter and the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants and further considering the income and social status of the parties, therefore, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of record. No interference is called for by this Court. The application being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J]