Disposed¶12

Sushil @ Poti v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2025A482/1392/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 482 Cr.P.C. application; Section 128 Cr.P.C. recovery warrant; Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. recall of ex-parte judgement; maintenance Rs. 8,000 per month; Family Court No. 3 Bulandshahar; Additional Principal Judge; Misc. Suit No. 1112 of 2022; abeyance of recovery proceedings pending recall application; expedition/direction to decide within six months; applicant Sushil @ Poti; opposite party State of U.P. and Another; neutral citation 2025:AHC:60038; decided 22.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Prayer regarding the impugned order refused; the operative relief is a direction to the Family Court concerned to expedite and decide the pending application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. within six months (subject to no legal impediment). ¶12

Sushil @ Poti Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 issuing a recovery warrant against the applicant calls for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

No material illegality or perversity, nor any abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice, was shown in the impugned order dated 05.08.2024; accordingly the applicant's prayer seeking interference with that order in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was refused.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts, the Family Court concerned was directed to expedite the hearing of the applicant's application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and decide it as early as possible, preferably within six months from production of a copy of this order before that court, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Raj Beer Singh, J.) — Application U/S 482 No. 1392 of 2025 (Sushil @ Poti v. State of U.P. and Another), decided 22.04.2025 [2025:AHC:60038]: challenged the order dated 05.08.2024 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bulandshahar in Misc. Suit No. 1112 of 2022 under Section 128 Cr.P.C., whereby a recovery warrant was issued against the applicant pursuant to an ex-parte maintenance judgement dated 26.04.2022 awarding opposite party No. 2 Rs. 8,000/- per month; the applicant's application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. (filed 05.06.2023) to recall the ex-parte judgement remains pending. Held: no material illegality, perversity, abuse of process or miscarriage of justice shown in the impugned order — prayer refused; however, the Family Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. application and decide it preferably within six months from production of a copy of the order, provided there is no legal impediment. Application disposed of in the above terms.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60038

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1392 of 2025 Applicant :- Sushil @ Poti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anupama Parashar,Satendra Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 05.08.2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bulandshahar in Misc. Suit No. 1112 of 2022, under Section 128 Cr.P.C., P.S. Agauta, District Bulandshahar, whereby recovery warrant has been issued against the applicant.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party No. 2 was awarded maintenance by the Family Court vide ex-parte judgement dated 26.04.2022. When applicant came to know about the said ex-parte judgement, he has filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on 05.06.2023 to recall the said ex-parte judgement. While that application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. is pending, by impugned order dated 05.08.2024 the Family court has issued recovery warrant against the applicant in the aforesaid execution proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that till the disposal of the said application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C, recovery proceedings may be kept in abeyance.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶9

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶10

Perusal of record shows that opposite party No. 2 was awarded maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- per month vide ex-parte judgement dated 26.04.2022. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 has initiated proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C., wherein impugned order has been passed, by which recovery warrant has been issued against the applicant. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. There is nothing to indicate that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the prayer sought in respect of impugned order dated 05.08.2024 is hereby refused.

¶11

However considering the facts of the matter, the Family court concerned is directed to expedite the hearing of the application filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of this order before the Family court concerned, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶12

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Anand

¶14

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

Sushil @ Poti v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil @ Poti v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases