Allahabad High Court
SANJAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DEEPAK VERMA
Holding
The High Court dismissed the application, finding no illegality or perversity in the lower courts’ orders and upholding the maintenance award.
Summary
The applicant filed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash an ex‑parte maintenance order dated 20‑10‑2014 and a subsequent order dated 06‑11‑2023 that rejected his request to recall the ex‑parte order. He alleged that he was falsely implicated and that his legally wedded wife, the opposite party, had deserted him, but he failed to appear before the trial court when the domestic‑violence proceedings were initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The trial court had granted maintenance of Rs 3,500 per month to the wife, and the High Court later directed the parties to attempt mediation, which failed. Upon review, the High Court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts’ orders and held that the maintenance award was proper. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482, directing the applicant to continue regular payment of maintenance. The decision underscores the limited scope of inherent powers to interfere with lawful lower‑court orders in domestic‑violence matters.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the ex‑parte maintenance order and the order rejecting the recall application.
- Whether the lower courts committed any illegality or perversity in granting maintenance to the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22
Subjects
- Domestic Violence Act
- Maintenance Order
- Section 482 CrPC
- Ex parte order
- Mediation
- High Court jurisdiction
- Quash application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7414 of 2024
Sanjay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Majahar Ali, Sushma Devi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Judicial
Officer, Pindra, Varanasi as well as the order dated 20.10.2014 passed by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Varanasi in
Complaint Case No. 4618 of 2012 (Smt. Mamta Vs. Sanjay & Others),
under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Phoolpur, District-Varanasi,
pending in the Court at Pindra, District-Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted
that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, who
initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act. Notice was issued to the applicant, however, he
did not appear before the trial court and consequently the proceedings
were decided ex parte vide order dated 20.10.2014, whereby maintenance
and other reliefs were granted in favour of opposite party no.2. Thereafter,
the applicant filed an application for recall of the ex parte order dated
20.10.2014. The said recall application was rejected by the learned
Magistrate vide order dated 06.11.2023.
4. This Court, vide order dated 10.04.2024, directed the applicant to
deposit a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- within two weeks, out of which
Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid to opposite party no.2 and Rs.5,000/-
A482 No. 7414 of 2024
2
towards mediation expenses. Pursuant thereto, the parties appeared before
the Mediation and Conciliation Centre; however, no settlement could be
arrived at between them. As per the report dated 18.12.2024 submitted by
the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the mediation proceedings have
failed. By means of the order dated 20.10.2014, the court below directed
the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month to opposite party no.2
towards maintenance.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the applicant and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality
or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Opposite
party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and it appears that
she has been deserted by him. The learned Magistrate has rightly allowed
the maintenance application and awarded a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month
in favour of opposite party no.2. No interference is warranted by this
Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Accordingly, the present application, being devoid of merits, is hereby
dismissed.
7. The applicant is directed to regularly pay the maintenance amount to
opposite party no.2 in terms of the order passed by the court below.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
May 5, 2026
KJ
Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…