Disposed¶18

Atul Jain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2025NA528/34141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS; Family Court Meerut; Restoration/Recall Application; Misc. Case No. 71 of 2025; maintenance; Section 146(2) BNSS; 126(2) CrPC; Section 125 CrPC; ex-parte judgment recall; excessive/imposed cost; cost reduction Rs. 36,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-; counter affidavit dispensed; Atul Jain v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 08.07.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut was modified to reduce the cost payable by the applicant from Rs. 36,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, payable within two weeks; the counter affidavit from opposite party no. 2 was dispensed with; and the application was disposed of. ¶18

Atul Jain vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34141 of 2025

¶3

Atul Jain

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Laxmi Kant Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 74

¶7

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶8

During the course of hearing learned counsel for the applicant has corrected the prayer clause of this application.

¶9

Sri Laxmi Kant Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chhavipal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶10

The present application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed to modify the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Restoration/Recall Application in Misc. Case No. 71 of 2025, arising out of an application under Section 146(2) of BNSS [126 (2) of Cr.P.C.], whereby Family Judge imposed Rs. 36,000/- as costs to restore the ex-parte judgment passed in case related to application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of case and position of law and in place of reasonable cost excessive cost has been imposed. It is further submitted that the Restoration/Recall Application has been filed to recall the ex-parte judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Family Court in Maintenance Case on 08.07.2025 for hearing.

¶12

The main grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that excessive cost has been imposed.

¶13

The matter is related to settled position of law. There is no other point for consideration except allowing the delay condonation application after

¶14

NA528 No. 34141 of 2025

¶15

¶16

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶17

imposing excessive cost, due to this reason, the opportunity to call the counter affidavit from the opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with.

¶18

In view of above facts & circumstances and keeping in mind the position of law, the order dated 08.07.2025 is modified with a direction to the applicant to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- in place of Rs. 36,000/-, which is payable within two weeks from today.

¶19

The order dated 08.07.2025 is modified to the extent as above.

¶20

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

¶21

September 9, 2025

¶22

MAA/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Atul Jain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Jain 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

Mohit Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Alias Rakesh Rajpoot @ Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Rao vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Aasray vs State of U.P. and 2 Others