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
10 paragraphs · 196 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 20.03.2018 (Annexure - P/3) by which warrant of arrest was directed to be issued
against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for non- deposition of maintenance allowance to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law as his application under Section 126(2) of
the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 16.06.2015 is pending consideration before the Family Court, Raipur.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.
Be that as it may, the petitioner would be at liberty to make an application before the Family Court, Raipur stating that the application filed by him
under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. is pending consideration but there is no ground to interfere with the warrant of arrest. As such I do not find any
merit to entertain this writ petition.
With the above stated observation, the writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner. No order as to cost(s).