Allahabad High Court
Samshad @ Sanu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 July, 2021
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1258 of 2021
Revisionist :- Samshad @ Sanu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Imtiyaj Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Case is taken up through video conferencing.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 06.03.2021, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi Gyanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. F-8 of 2021, under Section 126 Cr.P.C. (Samshad vs. Tabassum & others), whereby the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., filed by the revisionist has been allowed against costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist, has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and for her two minor children, which was allowed by the Court below vide ex-parte order dated 05.02.2020 and maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month was granted to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1000/- per month was granted for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 each. Learned counsel submitted that the revisionist has moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recall of said order dated 05.02.2020 and that application has been allowed by the Court below vide impugned order dated 06.03.2021 against the costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The grievance of the revisionist is that the amount of costs is excessive and arbitrary and thus, the impugned order is liable to be altered to that extent.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It was submitted that maintenance was granted vide ex-parte order dated 05.02.2020 and that order has been set aside after one year on 06.03.2021 and thus, the private opposite parties have been deprived of maintenance for a period of about 12 months by the impugned order and in view of these facts, the costs of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the Court below cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary.
Perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her two minor children and that application was partly allowed vide ex-parte order dated 05.02.2020 and maintenance @ Rs. 4000/- was granted to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1000/- each was granted to opposite party nos. 3 and 4. The revisionist moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the said ex-parte order dated 05.02.2020. This application was allowed vide impugned order dated 06.03.2021 against the costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The Court below has noticed that when the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was allowed there were arrears of maintenance of Rs. 72,000/- against the applicant. Considering the amount of arrears of maintenance, the costs of Rs. 20,000/-, while allowing application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and recalling the ex-parte order of maintenance dated 05.02.2020, cannot be said excessive or arbitrary. This fact cannot be lost sight of that opposite party no.2 has not only to maintain herself but she has the responsibility to maintain her two minor children. Learned Court below has considered entire facts in correct perspective and passed a reasoned order. There is no illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and thus, the instant revision has no force and therefore liable to be set aside.
Accordingly the revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2021/A. Tripathi
