Rahul Koli vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9490 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9108 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rahul Koli
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pandey Balkrishna,Sunil Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri Pandey Balkrishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Rahul Koli with the prayer to quash the orders dated 19.12.2022 and 30.01.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Bulandshahr in Misc. Case No. 975 of 2022 (Smt. Sangeeta Vs. Rahul Koli), under Section 5 of Limitation Act in Maintenance Case No. 176 of 2019 (Smt. Sangeeta Vs. Rahul Koli), under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr and with a further prayer to direct the learned court below to exempt the applicant from depositing Rs. 1 lakhs in the form of cost and to consolidate the amount of Rs. 1 lakh into the arrears amount of maintenance, awarded vide ex-parte order dated 16.11.2021 in the aforesaid case.

One of the orders impugned dated 19.12.2022 is passed on an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act filed by the applicant for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and order dated 16.11.2021 by which maintenance has been directed to be paid by the applicant to his wife and one child. Since the said judgment and order is ex-parte, the applicant filed an application dated 26.07.2022 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with an application of the same date under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2022 but with a direction to the applicant to pay Rs. 1 lakh as cost on the same. The applicant then preferred an application dated 30.01.2023 with the prayer that he is ready to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh but the same be directed to be set off against the maintenance. The said application also stands rejected vide order dated 30.01.2023 as being not maintainable. The applicant deposited Rs. 1 lakh before the concerned trial court on 30.01.2023.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in so far as the order impugned dated 19.12.2022 is concerned, he is not challenging the same on merits but only on the ground that the amount of cost as imposed is too excessive and as such the same be adjusted as arrears of maintenance. It is further argued that the said amount has already been deposited by the applicant on 30.01.2023 as would be evident from the order sheet of the said date which is annexure 3 to the affidavit.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the aforesaid prayer.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records and looking to the conduct of the applicant and also to his bonafides, it is provide that the half of the amount of Rs. 1 lakh as deposited, shall be adjusted in the amount of arrears of maintenance to be paid by the applicant.

The application stands allowed in view of the aforesaid directions.

Order Date :- 31.3.2023

M. ARIF

(Samit Gopal, J.)