Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application partly allowed: the order dated 13.1.2025 (recall/restoration case conditioned on payment of the entire maintenance arrears within one month) is quashed, the hearing of Private-Opposite Party No. 2 is dispensed with, and the court concerned is directed to decide the application under Section 126, Cr.P.C. afresh; the prayer to quash the order dated 20.4.2024 is dismissed as not pressed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.1.2025 allowing recall/restoration of the ex-parte order solely on the condition of payment of all the arrears of maintenance should be quashed and the underlying application decided afresh. +1 more

Court's answer

The only remaining point for consideration was the direction issued to pay all the arrears of maintenance as the condition for recalling the ex-parte order.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the opportunity to hear Private-Opposite Party No. 2 was dispensed with.

Key takeaways

The application is partly allowed and the order dated 13.1.2025 is quashed.ratio¶14
The court concerned is directed to decide the application under Section 126, Cr.P.C. afresh.ratio¶15
The prayer for quashing the order dated 20.4.2024 is dismissed as not pressed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), order dated 8.8.2025 - APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 23064 of 2025 (Umesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another). The applicant sought quashing of (i) the order dated 20.4.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in maintenance (enhance) case No. 121 of 2021, arising out of an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., and (ii) the order dated 13.1.2025 in recall/restoration case No. 674 of 2024, arising out of an application under Section 126(2), Cr.P.C., whereby that application had been allowed on the terms of payment of the entire arrears of maintenance within one month. The prayer against the order dated 20.4.2024 was dismissed as not pressed. Finding no point for consideration other than the direction to pay all arrears of maintenance as the condition for recalling the ex-parte order, the Court dispensed with hearing Private-Opposite Party No. 2, partly allowed the application, quashed the order dated 13.1.2025, and directed the court concerned to decide the application under Section 126, Cr.P.C. afresh.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134697

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23064 of 2025

Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard Shri Satish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pushpraj Singh, learned brief holder for the State.

The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed to quash the order dated 20.4.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in maintenance (enhance) case No. 121 of 2021, arising out of an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 13.1.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in recall/restoration case No. 674 of 2024, arising out of an application under Section 126(2), Cr.P.C., whereby the application has been allowed on the terms of payment of entire arrears of maintenance within one month.

Learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press the prayer for quashing the order dated 20.4.2024.

The prayer for quashing the same is dismissed as not pressed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 13.1.2025 has been passed without considering the facts, circumstances and position of law. It is further submitted that instead of imposing any cost, direction to pay arrears of maintenance as condition precedent is clear abuse of process of law.

At this stage, there is no other point for consideration except the direction issued to pay all the arrears of maintenance for recalling the ex-parte order and in view of above facts and circumstances,

the opportunity to hear Private-Opposite Party No. 2 is dispensed with.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application is partly allowed and the order dated 13.1.2025 is, hereby, quashed.

Court concerned is directed to decide the application under Section 126, Cr.P.C. as afresh.

Order Date :- 8.8.2025 T. Sinha

Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad