Jarrar Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 18980 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48856
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 809 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Jarrar Ahmad
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 132/11/2023 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., Police Station-Dargah Sharif, District-Bahraich, whereby cost of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the revisionist on the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed as cost on the application under Section 126(2).

3. It is submitted that prior to the application moved under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., opposite party no. 2 has moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 585 of 2011 which was compromised between the parties on 18.07.2012 and the compromise deed is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the revision. It is submitted that, after successful compromise, opposite party No. 2 agreed that no other legal action shall be taken against the revisionist after release of the amount of Rs. 11,000/-, however, opposite party No. 2 again filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 1452/11/2018 which was decided ex-parte against the revisionist on 12.11.2021. Against the said ex-parte order objection was moved under Section 126 Cr.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Learned family court, while allowing both the application, imposed cost of Rs. 25,000/- in each applications which is exorbitant and it is prayed to set-aside the order of imposing the cost.

4. Instant revision is moved only to the extent of the cost imposed, therefore, there is no need to sent summon to opposite party No. 2.

5. I have perused the materials brought on record.

6. It transpires from the record that case No. 585 of 2011 was decided on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties and later on after the compromise, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 1452 of 2018 was filed for maintenance. It also transpires from the impugned order of the learned trial court dated 23.06.2023 that application of revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under Section 126 Cr.P.C. was allowed, therefore, revisionist has no grievance to this extent. The only grievance of the revisionist is the cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon him by the learned court below.

7. Considering the fact that learned court below imposed cost on the revisionist, that too of Rs. 50,000/- which is exorbitant and does not serve the purpose of law, therefore, the cost is converted into the maintenance and the revisionist is directed to deposit 50% of the total cost as the maintenance of the opposite party No. 2 that shall be released in favour of opposite party No. 2.

8. With the above observations, instant revision is partly allowed.

9. The amount so deposited shall be adjusted towards the payment of maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(Renu Agarwal, J.)

Order Date :- 25.7.2023

Karan