Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118763 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21988 of 2024 Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mehrunisa,Rizwan Sayed,Shailesh Pandey,Ziya Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Javed Alam Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ms. Mehrunisa, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Javed Alam, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 23.05.2024, passed in Misc. Case No.20 of 2024 as well as Original Case No.132 of 2017(Imran Vs. Smt. Shama Parveen), under section 126(2) Cr.P.C., Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur and remand back to the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2. There was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and in connection therewith the opposite party no.2 had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2017. The trial court even after service of summons when the applicant herein did not appear in the said proceedings, proceeded ex-parte on 27.07.2017 against the applicant herein. Thereafter vide final order dated 23.09.2017 an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month has been awarded to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance to be paid by the applicant from the date of application. Against the said order the applicant herein had filed an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. alongwith an application on 09.02.2024 for condonation of delay i.e. after about six and half years. Vide impugned order dated 23.05.2024 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hapur has rejected the application under section 5 of Limitation Act and refused to condone the delay in the instant case, categorically recording the findings that there was sufficient service on the applicant of the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. and he deliberately not appeared in the said proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to contend before this Court that the address as given in complaint was not correct address and the summons were not served on the applicant. When the counsel for the applicant was asked to draw attention to the address given in the complaint as well as in the impugned order, he admit that the address is correct. 6. In view thereof, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the order dated 27.07.2017 proceeding ex-parte against the applicant after recording the findings that the service of summon were completed on the applicant herein. Thus there is no illegality in the ex-parte order dated 23.09.2017 whereby the applicant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application. The application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. alongwith application under section 5 of Limitation Act, was filed after more than six and half years and after that the impugned order was passed by the Family Court, Hapur. Therefore, this Court did not find any good reason to interfere in the impugned order and the order dated 23.05.2024 is hereby affirmed. 7. The instant application lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 VKG (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad