Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 November, 2024
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174955
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19619 of 2024
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 04.04.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, in Case No.370 of 2013 (Babita Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Badlapur, District- Jaunpur, whereby maintenance has been granted in favour of opposite party no.2 and her three children. The order dated 21.02.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court 3rd, Jaunpurt in Case No.24 of 2024 as well as order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Execution Case No.1551 of 2019, under Section 128 Cr.P.C. are also being impugned.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order is against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. The opposite party no.2 has already obtained four bigha land from the father of applicant and thus she can not claim maintenance. The Family Court has granted maintenance by ex-parte judgment and order dated 04.04.2019 and the applicant has filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the said order, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 21.02.2024 and that recovery warrants have been issued against applicant in proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 06.05.2024. The applicant is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance. The Family Court has not considered facts and law while passing the impugned orders. Earlier, the applicant has challenged the recovery proceedings before this Court vide Application 482 Cr.P.C. No.8107 of 2023, which was dismissed on the ground that order of maintenance has not been challenged. In regard to maintainability, learned counsel submitted that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and there is no illegality in the impugned orders.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. Perusal of record shows that opposite party no.2 and her three children were granted maintenance by ex-parte judgment and order dated 04.04.2019. The applicant has filed application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. to recall the ex-parte judgment dated 04.04.2019, which has been rejected by the Family Court vide impugned order dated 21.02.2024. It appears from record that impugned ex-parte judgment was passed on 04.04.2019 and thereafter earlier he has filed an application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. to recall the same, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2019. The applicant has again filed an application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. vide Case No.207/2021, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2021. The applicant has filed a third application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. to recall the said ex-parte judgment, which was also dismissed. Now again this fourth application has been filed by applicant under Section 126 Cr.P.C. to recall the ex-parte judgment dated 04.04.2019, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 21.02.2024. It is apparent that as the applicant has not challenged the earlier orders, by which his application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall ex-parte judgment dated 04.04.2019 were rejected, thus no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 21.02.2024. As earlier applications of applicant to recall the order dated 04.04.2019 were rejected by the Family Court thus there was no new ground to recall the said ex-parte judgment. So far, the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 is concerned, no material illegality or perversity could be shown.
7. Considering entire facts of the case, this Court does not find any such patently illegality or perversity in the above referred impugned orders so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.11.2024
SP/-
