High CourtsDivision Bench

Sanjay Mehta vs Smt. Soniya Mehta

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 04 UK CK 0076

HON’BLE JUDGES
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J · Prafulla C. Pant, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 · Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 24
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal from Order No. 140 of 2011

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 348 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This is delay condonation application No. 2974 of 2011, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against order dated 19.01.2011, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in execution case No. 3 of 2009.

2.

There is delay of 27 days in filing the appeal which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed with the delay condonation application.

3.

Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

4.

Heard on admission.

5.

This appeal, preferred u/s 19 of Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 19.01.2011, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in execution case No. 3 of 2009, whereby said court has directed to issue recovery warrant of Rs. 24,500/-, recoverable u/s 24 of Hindu marriage Act, 1955.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the trial court has erred in law in not adjusting the amount payable by the Appellant to his wife u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. However, perusal of the impugned order shows that the order directing to pay maintenance u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was got set aside by the Appellant (husband) himself. As such, there remain nothing which was to be adjusted from the amount payable u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The proceedings u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure and that of one u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are independent proceedings. In our opinion trial court has committed no error of law in directing to issue recoverable warrant of Rs. 24,500/-, payable as maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

7.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the economic condition of the Appellant is not such in which he can pay the entire amount in one go.

8.

In the above circumstances, this appeal is dismissed summarily with the observation that the Appellant may deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/-, by 15.05.2011, another installment of Rs. 10,000/-, by 15.07.2011, and remaining amount by 15.09.2011. In default of any of the installment recovery of entire remaining amount may be made in pursuance to the impugned order at once.