Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16811 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29801 of 2024 Applicant :- Kiran Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Jaunpur in execution case no. 2698 of 2022, under Section 128 Cr.P.C., whereby the Family court has directed the applicant to submit details of the property of opposite party No. 4. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is wife of opposite party no. 4 and she was awarded maintenance vide order dated 11.11.2022. Thereafter, applicant has initiated the aforesaid proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance. As the opposite party No. 4 has not paid the amount of maintenance, the Family court has called a report from the Tehsildar, Badlapur, Jaunpur regarding his property. It was submitted that in the report of Tehsildar, it was mentioned that the land of opposite party No. 4 was attached but his share could not be determined and that as per government orders, land having area less than three and a half acre cannot be auctioned. Learned counsel submitted that in the said report of the Tehsildar, there is no such specific averment that the land of opposite party No. 4 is less than three and a half acre. In the impugned order the Family court has not made any observation that the report of Tehsildar is acceptable or not. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred the case of Rama Nand v. Hira Lal, [Second Appeal No. 1698 of 1990], decided on 30.09.2022. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. Perusal of record shows that applicant is wife of opposite party No. 4 and she has initiated the aforesaid proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party No. 4. In the aforesaid proceedings, a report was called from the concerned Tehsildar regarding agriculture land of opposite party No. 4. In the said report the concerned Tehsildar has stated that the land of opposite party No. 4 has been attached but his share could not be determined and that as per Government orders land, having area less than three and a half acre, cannot be auctioned. It appears from impugned order that the Family court has not mentioned in the impugned order whether the report of the concerned Tehsildar is accepted or not. Similarly, it has also not ascertained by the Family court whether the land holding of opposite party No. 4 is less than three and a half acre. It appears that the learned Family court without considering said aspects, directed the applicant (wife) to file detail of some other property of the opposite party No. 4. 7. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Family court, Jaunpur is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Family Court concerned to consider and pass an order afresh on the said report of Tehsildar in accordance with law. 8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad