Allahabad High Court
Manish Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 November, 2024
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176217
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16096 of 2024
Applicant :- Manish Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.B. Pal
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, leaned counsel for the private opposite parties and learned AGA for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 17.02.2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Firozabad, in criminal misc. case No. 2002 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has been allowed subject to the costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of opposite party no. 3. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was decided by the ex-parte judgement and order dated 10.08.2023, granting maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3/minor child. When applicant came to know about the ex-parte judgement and order dated 10.08.2023, he has filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- It was submitted that the costs imposed by the Family court is quite excessive and arbitrary. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that the costs imposed by the Family court may be reduced.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. Perusal of record shows that applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of opposite party no. 3/minor daughter. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have filed the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against applicant in the year 2022, which was decided by ex-parte judgment and order dated 10.08.2023 and maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month has been granted in favour of opposite party no. 2/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 3/minor daughter. The application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. filed for recalling the ex-parte judgement and order dated 10.08.2023 has been allowed subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/-.It may be stated that opposite party no. 2 was pursuing the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. since the year 2022 and by ex-parte judgement dated 10.08.2023 she was granted maintenance from the date of application. Once the ex-parte judgment is recalled, the opposite party no. 2 would lost her arrears of maintenance accrued in pursuance of the said ex-parte judgement and therefore, in order to compensate the opposite party no. 2, reasonable costs has to be imposed upon the applicant. In view of the facts of the matter, it cannot be said that the costs of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the Family court is excessive or arbitrary.
7. Considering all relevant facts of the matter, this Court does not find any such patent illegality or abuse of the process of court in the impugned order dated 17.02.2024 so as to require any interference by the Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.
8. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024
Anand
