Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93467 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40753 of 2024 Applicant :- Shri Vijay Kumar Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra,Satyam Mishra,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material available on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the ex parte order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Room No. 5, Prayagraj in Case No. 295 of 2021 (Smt. Madhulika Tripathi and others vs. Vijay Kumar Tripathi) whereby interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month has been awarded to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 each till their majority, and further order dated 07.10.2024 rejecting the restoration application filed by the applicant as well as the recovery warrant dated 23.05.2024 issued under Section 128 Cr.P.C. in Execution Case No. 22 of 2024. 3. The brief facts, as stated, are that the applicant was married to opposite party no. 2 on 27.02.2009 according to Hindu rites and rituals and two sons were born from the wedlock. It is stated that the opposite party no. 2 has been residing separately since 01.11.2018 without sufficient cause. On 26.03.2021, opposite party no. 2 along with her children filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Prayagraj seeking maintenance. An ex parte order was passed on 20.01.2024 due to the non-appearance of the applicant, awarding maintenance as stated above. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to illness caused by COVID-19, the applicant could not appear before the Court after October 2021, and thus, the ex parte order was passed without his knowledge. A restoration application dated 01.08.2024 was filed but the same was rejected by the learned Court on 07.10.2024 without considering the justification provided for non-appearance. 5. Learned counsel further submits that opposite party no. 2 left the matrimonial home without any justified reason and has made false allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, which are not supported by any medical evidence or criminal proceedings. He also contends that the applicant is unemployed and not in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 2,96,000/- as per the recovery warrant dated 23.05.2024. 6. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to reside with opposite party no. 2 and his children and has also filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders dated 20.01.2024, 07.10.2024, and 23.05.2024 be quashed and the matter be referred to mediation. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State, however, opposes the prayer and submits that the order dated 20.01.2024 was passed after the applicant failed to appear despite issuance of summons. The learned court rightly considered the claims of the opposite parties and awarded a reasonable amount as maintenance. It is further submitted that the applicant had ample opportunity to contest the case and that the restoration application was rejected on merits. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is evident that the ex parte order dated 20.01.2024 was passed after due service of summons and the applicant had participated in the proceedings initially. The justification for non- appearance due to illness was not found to be satisfactory by the trial court, and the restoration application was rejected by a reasoned order dated 07.10.2024. The Family Court has awarded maintenance considering the needs of the wife and minor children and the social status of the parties. The order cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The remedy of the applicant lies before the Family Court by way of appropriate application for modification of the order upon establishing change in circumstances or financial incapacity. 9. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. order Date :- 30.5.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad