Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63951 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39490 of 2024 Applicant :- Himanshu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mehdi Abbas Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kuma Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing the order dated 08-10-2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, No.1, Bulandshahar in Misc. Case No. 384 of 2024 (Himanshu Vs. Smt. Neetu) under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. P.S. Narsaina, district Bulandshahar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a daily wage labourer engaged under the MGNREGA scheme, earning merely 237 per day for a limited number of days in a ₹ year. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court passed the ex-parte order dated 07.07.2023 awarding maintenance without properly ascertaining the applicant’s actual source of income and without following the due process of earning assessment. It is also contended that opposite party no.2 voluntarily chose to live separately and admitted the same in her statement recorded before the Fast Track Court (Junior Division), Bulandshahr. Furthermore, no objection was filed by opposite party no.2 to the delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, nor to the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. Despite these facts, the court proceeded in a whimsical and arbitrary manner while passing the impugned order dated 08.10.2024. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State, opposing the application, submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Family Court after due consideration of the facts on record and in accordance with law. The applicant was given a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings, and the ex-parte order was already recalled on his application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., thereby restoring the case on merits. The amount of maintenance granted is reasonable and justified, and no procedural irregularity or legal infirmity is evident in the impugned order. Hence, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 5.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that due opportunity was given to the applicant. The court below had passed the order under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. recalling the earlier ex-parte order, and the matter was restored on its original number. The learned court thereafter proceeded in accordance with law. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate that any manifest injustice has occurred or that the order is perverse or illegal. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. 7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad