‘Strange’ That State Took Up The Side Of Husband: Supreme Court While Setting Aside Order Reducing Maintenance To Wife Ex-Parte

In this case, the Allahabad High Court without hearing the appellants (wife and the daughter) by a very cryptic order, had reduced the maintenance of 12,000/- per month granted by the Family Court by a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Before we part with the judgment, we must mention two strange facts. As noted earlier, the revision application preferred by the appellants (wife and the minor daughter) was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, as specifically noted in the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the High Court. Moreover, in both the appeals, there is a counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, U.P., opposing the appeals. The legality of the impugned order has been justified in the affidavit. The approach of the State of taking the side of the husband in a maintenance case, to say the least, is very strange. In fact, the learned counsel, who appeared for the State was under a duty and obligation to act as an officer of the Court and to assist the Court in arriving at a correct conclusion”.

Advocate Sulaiman Mohd. Khan appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate, AAG UP Garima Prasad appeared for the respondents.

In the case, the first appellant was the wife of the second respondent and the second appellant was the minor daughter of the second respondent. The Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the appellants and granted total maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month. There were revision applications preferred both by the appellants and the second respondent.

Pursuant to which, the High Court through the impugned order, dismissed the revision application preferred by the appellants against the same order. The bench noted that not even a notice was issued to the second respondent-husband and based on the opposition made by the counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, the revision application was dismissed. Observing the same, the Supreme court order read. “Obviously, the High Court could not have passed such order ex-parte, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants…We are surprised to note that the learned counsel for the State has taken up the cause of the husband”.

Consequentially, both the impugned orders were set aside and the original order of the Family Court granting maintenance to the appellants was restored.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Taiba Khan, Bhanu Malhotra, Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Gopeshwar Sigh Chandel, Abdul Bari Khan, AOR Rohit Amit Sthalekar

Respondents: Senior Advocate, AAG UP Garima Prasad, AOR Sudeep Kumar, Advocates Ramesh Thakur, Sarfaraz Khan, AOR Kausar Raza Faridi, Advocates Shahbaaz Jameel, Ali Muzaffar, Sarika Verma, Amit Pandey, Nbvs Reddy

Cause Title: Asiya Khan & Anr. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.