Dismissed

Jiyaulahak v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024A482/23383/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application challenging an ex-parte maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court held the special leave application not maintainable, directing the applicant to seek recall under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, recovery warrants issued for arrears were upheld.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed as not maintainable. Applicant given liberty to file revision or apply under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.

Jiyaulahak vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23383 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Jiyaulahak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the ex-parte judgement dated 15.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court no. 3, Bulandshahr, in maintenance Case No. 59 of 2021, under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Ahmadgarh, District - Bulandshahr, whereby maintenance has been granted in favour of opposite party no.2/wife. The recovery warrant dated 03.04.2024 issued in Misc. Case No. 1610 of 2021 is also being impugned.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that by impugned ex-parte order dated 15.12.2021 maintenance has been granted in favour of opposite party no.2/wife and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

¶9

It may be observed that against ex-parte judgement, passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., applicant has option to file an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recalling of the same. Further, in view of the law laid down in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445, Ashu Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶10

2023:AHC:165660, Manish Aggarwal Vs. Seema Aggarwal and Others 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4816 and Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497, the application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the Family court is not maintainable.

¶11

Thus, so far impugned order dated 15.12.2021 is concerned, in view of the aforesaid facts, this application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not maintainable. However, applicant would be at liberty to file revision or resort to file an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recalling of the ex-parte judgement in accordance with law.

¶12

As this application against order dated 15.12.2021 is not maintainable, thus, no fault can be found with recovery warrants issued for realization of arrears of maintenance.

¶13

As prayed, the certified copy of the impugned order, if any, may be returned back to the learned counsel for the applicant after retaining photocopy of the same on record.

¶14

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed in above terms.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Anand

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jiyaulahak v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiyaulahak v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod vs State of U.P. and Another

Adarsh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Phoolmati vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Bajpai vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Bahdauriya vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another