Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 884 of 2024 Revisionist :- Mahesh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Veerendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunita Dwivedi Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Veerendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. By means of the present revision,, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by Additional Family Judge Family Court, Ayodhya wherein the application preferred by the revisionist for recall of the order dated 05.05.2022 has been allowed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that respondent No. 2 is his legally wedded wife and without any reason has left the matrimonial home and was living along with her parents and had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Principle Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya on 18.03.2019 which was registered as Case No. 103 of 2019. The revisionist has appeared before the Family Court, Ayodhya where he was informed that Maintenance Case no. 103 of 2019 has been decided ex-parte vide order dated 05.05.2022 and accordingly, he moved an application U/S 126(2) of Cr.P.C. on 23.05.2022 for recalling of the order dated 05.05.2022. The application for recall has been allowed and the ex-parte order dated 05.05.2022 has been set aside imposing a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that the cost imposed upon the revisionist is exorbitant considering the fact that the reasons for recall was duly accepted by the trial court. He has further submitted that no reasons have been recorded for imposing the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, he has submitted that the cost is excessive and had vehemently prayed for reduction of the same. It is further noticed that before this Court it was stated by the parties that the matter could be resolved through the process of mediation and according the revisionist was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- which was duly deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow by him and was disbursed in favour of respondent No. 2. It has further been informed that no settlement could be arrived at in the mediation process. 5. I have heard rival contentions as well as perused the record. 6. The ground taken by the revisionist in the application for recall was that he was not aware of the proceedings instituted by respondent no. 2 U/S 125 Cr.P.C. and consequelty could not put in appearances. He has further stated that none appearance in the application were deliberate and were in fact bona fide for want of knowledge. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that quantum of imposition of cost was rather excessive and accordingly the same is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. Further, out of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- has already been disbursed to respondent No. 2 and accordingly present revision is allowed with a direction to the revisionist to deposit remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- before the trial court within next two weeks. Once the mount is deposited, respondent No. 2 would be at liberty to mvoe an appropriate application to withdraw the same. 8. With the aforesaid observations / directions, the present criminal revision stands allowed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench