Asajad vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50318

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3467 of 2025

Applicant :- Asajad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar, by which the fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed against the applicant as well as interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of application dated 10.10.2019 till the disposal of Misc. Case No.1157 of 2023, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the concerned family court has decided ex parte the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and he has no knowledge about the said order dated 26.07.2023, by which the family court has granted the maintenance to opposite party no.2 of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of said application. When he has got information of the said order, he has moved an application under Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. for review the said order i.e order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Family Court and prayed to lead the evidence and to argue the petition.

¶9

Taking into consideration the grounds made in Application No.1157 of 2023, under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., family court has allowed the application and passed the interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of application i.e. 10.10.2019, till the disposal of main application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also imposed the fine of Rs.20,000/-.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the family court is without considering the facts that there are no

¶11

application for claiming interim maintenance while granting Rs.4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2. He has further submitted that while allowing the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., the family court has not given any reason, therefore, the order may be quashed.

¶12

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the court concerned has taken into consideration on the objection filed by the applicant as well as the evidence which has been led by the applicant therein and opposite party no.2 herein and passed the order dated 26.07.2023. It is further submitted that while allowing the Application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., the court concerned has only taken into consideration the main ground that during the proceeding of case applicant herein could not appear before the court concerned on 26.07.2023, the said application has been decided and Rs.10,000/- per month has been awarded to opposite party no.2. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, evidence led by the applicant therein as well as the objection filed by the applicant, the family court while deciding the Application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has rightly given interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶13

At this juncture, without pressing the matter on merit, learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- as imposed, may be condoned and the direction may be issued to the court concerned to decide the Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., expeditiously and with the time bound manner without giving any adjournment to either of the parties.

¶14

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Taking into consideration, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, later on he has not pressed the arguments on merit, but only made the prayer to condone the fine amount of Rs.20,000/-, which has been imposed by the court concerned and no objection from other side, who appeared in advance notice, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to condone the fina amount of Rs.20,000/-.

¶16

The court concerned is directed to expedite the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶17

Accordingly, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Atul

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Asajad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asajad 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

Suman Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sujeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Naushad Khan vs State of U.P.

Poonam Pal vs State of U.P.

Akshay Ahirwar vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kamla Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another