Disposed

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024A482/25548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought reduction of a Rs.25,000 cost imposed on restoration of an ex-parte Section 125 maintenance order. The High Court declined to interfere but directed the cost be paid to the wife and adjusted against final maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; no interference with the Family Court order; Rs.25,000 cost to be paid to wife and adjusted against final maintenance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145136

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25548 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Renu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Restoration/Misc. Case No.31 of 2023, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. arising out of Case No.288 of 2015, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur (Reeta Devi vs. Rajesh) in regard to fine imposed of Rs.25,000/- and prays to direct the learned court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur to reduce the fine of Rs.25,000/- which was passed by it.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case applicant is husband of the opposite party no.2 Reeta Devi. An application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.288/2015 and order was passed ex-parte on 01.03.2021 allowing Rs.2500/- as maintenance allowance. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Case No.31/23 was filed u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. by the present applicant for setting aside the ex-parte order and to restore the Original Case No.288/15. It is also submitted that the order in question was passed on 09.04.2024 by which ex-parte order was set aside but cost of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the applicant which cannot be said to be reasonable, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned court and to allow the present application.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case during the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. interim maintenance amounting to Rs.1500/- per month was also allowed but even single penny was not given by the applicant to his wife (opposite party no.2). Though he was present in the court at the

¶10

time when matter was referred to mediation but it failed, thereafter, applicant became absent as a result thereof on 02.02.2021 case was proceeded as ex-parte. After recording evidence and hearing the applicant final order was passed on 21.03.2023 by which learned court allowed Rs.2500/- as interim maintenance. Then application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant which was allowed by the learned court concerned while setting aside the order in question by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- on the applicant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the circumstances of the case, the fact that applicant had knowledge about the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and was appearing before the learned court but when the matter was referred to mediation which was failed and he became absent as a result ex-parte order was passed finally. An application for interim maintenance was also moved by the opposite party no.2 before the learned court in which Rs.1500/- were allowed but no any penny was given by him to his wife in compliance of the order passed by the learned court. Thereafter, he moved an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. ex-parte which was allowed by the learned court on heavy cost of Rs.25,000/-. In considered opinion of this Court since the opposite party no.2 is wedded wife of the applicant and she is living separately from the year 2015 and agitating the proceedings before the learned court and no any penny was given to her by the applicant even as interim maintenance, therefore, there appears no ground to make interference in the order passed by the learned court but the amount of cost of Rs.25,000/- be paid to the opposite party no.2 the wife which shall be adjusted in the final amount of maintenance which will be awarded by the learned court.

¶12

Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Ashok Gupta

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munne Lal and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Rijha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Kalyan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kaushinder vs State of U.P. and Another

Ziya Firdaus vs State of U.P. and Another