Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60604 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34620 of 2024 Applicant :- Deep Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anupama Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, A.G.A. representing the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing the order dated 28.09.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur, in Misc. Case No. 147 of 2018 (Moni Devi Vs. Deep Prakash) under ection 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kanth, District Shahjahanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a dispute among the parties in which opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 C.P.C. wherein an interim award of Rs. 4,000/- rupees was passed. The same was challenged before this Court vide application u/s 482 no. 46282 of 2018. In that case following order was passed: "1. Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. These application is pending since 2018 & 2020, whereas, the issue involved are not much debatable. 3. The applicant is husband of opposite party no.2. It appears that there was some dispute amongst them, therefore, opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein by impugned order dated 31.07.2018 applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month by an ex-parte order. 4. The Court by order dated 19.12.2018 granted liberty to file a recall application, however, it was rejected by other impugned order dated 19.02.2020. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, applicant has approached this Court by way of filing both applications with a prayer to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court, mainly on ground that impugned order was passed ex-parte and material fact that since he is suffering from vision disability, as such, he is totally dependent on his parent and could not be brought on record the recall application is considered. Learned trial court only on basis of allegations made by opposite party no.2 that applicant is working as a computer operator and has a shop passed order of maintenance which he is unable to pay. 6. A notice was issued in present application to opposite party no.2, however, the report dated 24.03.2023 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur states that she (opposite party no.2) has refused to accept the same. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the service of notice upon opposite party no.2 is deemed to be served. 8. This Court has passed the following order on 19.12.2018: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The impugned order dated 31.7.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in Case No. 303 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., shall remain stayed provided that applicant keeps on paying Rs.2000/- to the opposite party No.2 per month from the date of order during the pendency of this application. In default of payment as aforesaid, this order shall stand automatically vacated. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date. Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this application on the date mentioned in the notice.It is open for the applicant to file recall application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. before the court below, which shall be decided by the court below as expeditiously, without being influenced by the pendency of this application." 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in pursuance of above order, applicant has filed a recall application. However, the same was dismissed on 19.02.2020 mainly on the ground that Advocate of applicant has not appeared repeatedly and he remained absent and tried to linger on the proceedings. Learned counsel for applicant has referred paragraph nos. 10, 11 & 12 of his application. 10. In order to appreciate the above, I have perused the material available in both applications and I find that at this stage according to the disability certificate the percentage of disability of eyes is 100% and the said document was not placed before learned trial court while considering application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 11. The aforesaid averments made by applicant in applications is remained unrefuted since, opposite party no.2 has refused to accept notice and, therefore, its consequence would fall. 10. The Court also finds that learned trial court has not considered the facts of the case specially the factum of disability and erroneously rejected the recall application despite this Court has permitted the applicant to file it. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that impugned orders dated 31.07.2018 and 19.02.2020 are liable to be quashed and are hereby set aside. 12. Accordingly, the application is disposed of." 4. Thereafter Court has accepted the application and restored the matter and put up for early hearing. The same has been challenged herein. 5. I see no illegality in the impugned order as the impugned order is nothing but a direction for early disposal of the case. 6. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad