Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144552 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 7) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34753 of 2024 Applicant :- Bharat Anand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha,Abhishek Tripathi,Nitin Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Rathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 30.8.2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 330 of 2024 (Bharat Anand vs. Savita Varshney and others) filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. Police Station-Chandausi, District-Sambhal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the applicant and since there was a matrimonial dispute between them she has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the applicant. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that no notice with regard to said proceedings was served on the applicant herein; however the trial court has proceeded ex parte against the applicant and thereupon has passed a final ex parte order awarding the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2. Subsequent thereto, the applicant filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which has been rejected vide order dated 30.8.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since he had no knowledge about the proceedings, therefore limitation for filing the said application starts from the date of knowledge. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant came to know about the said proceedings on 27.2.2024. Thereupon, he approached his counsel and certified copy of the order dated 20.11.2023 was obtained on 5.3.2024. Thereafter, recall application along with application for condonation of delay was filed on 7.4.2025. The application for condonation of delay has been rejected by the trial court. Thus, the grievance of the applicant is that he has not been given opportunity of hearing before passing the final order in the instant case. 5. From perusal of records of the case, it is apparent as has been noted in the order dated 20.11.2023 that the notices were issued to the applicant on 3.8.2023 which were returned with a remark that on repeatedly approaching the house of the applicant there was a lock. The applicant was contacted on phone and he informed that he is out of station. The notice was fixed on the residence of the applicant. On the basis of such report, the trial court found the service of notice to be sufficient on the applicant. Technically speaking even after the knowledge of the proceeding on 27.2.2024, there is some delay in filing the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. by the applicant. Thus, prima facie there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court; however, looking at the overall circumstances and the nature of dispute, this Court finds it appropriate to give an opportunity to the applicant to contest the petition on merits subject to deposit of entire amount as per the order dated 20.11.2023 and the said amount be treated as amount of interim maintenance and the applicant shall continue to pay the said amount till the finalization of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. 6. Thus, the instant application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to make the payment of entire arrears of maintenance as awarded vide order dated 20.11.2023 within a period of four weeks from today and the maintenance awarded vide order dated 20.11.2023 shall be treated as interim maintenance during the pendency of the case and the applicant herein undertakes to continue to pay the same regularly. 7. Subject to the aforesaid deposit of entire arrears, the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant shall be treated to have been allowed and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.c. initiated by the opposite party no. 2 shall be heard afresh after giving full opportunity to the applicant as well as opposite party no. 2 to lead the evidence and contest the case on merits. The amount of maintenance as awarded vide order dated 20.11.2023 shall be treated as an amount of interim maintenance during the pendency of proceedings. 8. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi shall proceed in the matter as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) A482 No. 34753 of 2024 2 Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad