Rahul Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3189 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rahul Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 January, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4697
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18212 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rahul Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Shahwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 29.11.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Misc. Matrimonial Case No. 330 of 2017 (Smt. Jamuna Sharma Vs. Rahul Sharma), under Section - 125(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station - Govardhan, District - Mathura, whereby recovery warrants have been issued against applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the opposite party no.2 and 3 have filed case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by ex-parte jugment dated 27.07.2017, granting maintenance in favour of opposite party no.2 and 3. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 and 3 have filed a case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. in Family Court, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh and in that case both the parties have compromised the matter and that case was dismissed by order dated 14.05.2022 on the basis of compromise between the parties but meanwhile the opposite party no.2 has initiated proceedings under Section - 125 (3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance in pursuance to ex-parte judgment dated 27.07.2017. Learned counsel submitted that as both the parties have settled the matter before the Family Court Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh thus, the impugned order is against law and thus, liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. 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 opposite party no.2 is wife of applicant and opposite party no.3 is their minor daughter. Opposite party no.2 and 3 were awarded maintenance by Family Court, Mathura vide ex-parte judgment dated 27.07.2017. The opposite party no.2 has initiated proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., wherein impugned order has been passed and recovery warrants were issued against applicant. Merely, because the opposite party no.2 has also filed a case for maintenance in Family Court, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh and that case was dismissed on the basis of compromise between the parties, it cannot be said that ex-parte judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed by Family Court, Mathura has been rendered null or void. As the judgment dated 27.07.2017 has not been challenged thus, the same can be executed in accordance with provisions under Section - 125(3)/128 Cr.P.C.. As the arrears of maintenance were not paid thus, the family court has issued recovery warrants against applicant. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that impugned order is suffering from any such patent illegality or abuse of the process, so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the prayer as sought above by the applicant is hereby refused.

7. However, the applicant would be at liberty to file an application under Section - 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the ex-parte judgment dated 27.07.2017 in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

Order Date :- 9.1.2025

S Rawat