Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27078 Court No. - 30 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3733 of 2025 Applicant :- Awdhesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Pandey,Akanksha,Vivek Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) by the applicant, assailing the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur in Case No. 527 of 2023 filed by the respondent no.2/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby opportunity to file objection/reply on behalf of the applicant against the aforesaid case i.e. Case No. 527 of 2023 has been closed. The applicant is also assailing the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in the aforesaid Case No. 527 o 2023, whereby application filed by the applicant for recalling the order dated 20.12.2024 has been rejected. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that on account of illness of the applicant’s counsel, reply/objection to the case filed by the applicant’s wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not be filed by the applicant within the prescribed time as was fixed by the Family Court. There is no fault on the part of the applicant as he is a labour class person and he is not well aware about the technicalities and he always depend upon his lawyer. In this regard, the applicant has made assertions in the recall application, but the Family Court did not appreciate the same in correct prospective and rejected the same by means of the impugned order dated 05.03.2025. He submitted that the applicant is ready to file reply/objection to the aforesaid case before the Family Court within the time prescribed by this Court. 4. It is well-settled law that a party cannot be made to suffer due to fault of his advocate. In Rafiq and Anr. v. Munshilal and Anr. : AIR 1981 SC 140 and Smt. Lachi and Ors. v. Director of Land Records and Ors. : AIR 1984 SC 41 while dealing with a similar issue held that a litigant cannot suffer for the fault of his counsel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the former case observed as under :- "What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him, would suffer because of the default of his advocate.... The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that a party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent.... We cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted." 5. Apparently, the applicant in para-10 of this application has pleaded that he is labour class person and is not aware about the technicalities of Court proceedings and he always depend upon his lawyer, however, due to illness, his Counsel could not file his reply within the prescribed period of time, which has been fixed by the trial Court. Thus, it appears that on account of default of the Counsel, the reply/objection could not be filed by the Counsel. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the applicant has informed the Court that 12.05.2025 is the next date fixed by the Family Court for disposal of interim maintenance. 7. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready to file objection/reply to the aforesaid case within the prescribed time fixed by this Court and due to default of his Counsel, reply could not be filed by the applicant, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is to be granted to the applicant for filing reply/objection. 8. In view of the aforesaid, impugned orders dated 20.12.2024 and 05.03.2025 are hereby set-aside and the present application is allowed. The applicant is directed to file reply/objection in Case No. 527 of 2027 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. positively on the next date of listing i.e. 12.05.2025 before the Family Court, failing which the Family Court will proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 9. This Court hopes and trusts that the Family Court shall consider and decide the application for interim maintenance in the aforesaid case on the next date itself i.e. 12.05.2025 and in case, it could not be possible to decide on 12.05.2025, the same shall be decided positively within fifteen days thereafter, unless there is any legal impediment in this regard. 10. It is also made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the applicant herein. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be provided to the applicant on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) Order Date :- 8.5.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench