Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75759 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2145 of 2025 Applicant :- Devdutta Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Dubey,Satyendra Kumar Dwivedi,Sipte Husain Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for the following reliefs :- "i. Quash the Ex-parte order dated 22.01.2020, passed by the Principal Judge, Family curt, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 1176 of 2017, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., awarding maintenance of Rs 4000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 and Rs. 3000/- per month to Opposite party No.3. ii. Quash the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, rejecting the Applicant's application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C and Section 5 of the Limitation Act for recall of the Ex-parte order. iii. Pass an order allowing the Application to adjust any pending maintenance amounts against future obligations towards Opposite Party No. 3 (child), while declaring that Opposite Party No. 2 is not entitled to maintenance on account of desertion, financial independence, and the findings in the divorce decree. iv. Pass any other and further orders, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. " 3. So far the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 is concerned, by that judgment the Family court has granted maintenance to the opposite party No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In view of law laid down in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445, Ashu Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023:AHC:165660 and Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497, it is clear that an order of maintenance or interim maintenance is not an interlocutory order and that against such orders, aggrieved person has remedy of revision. It was held that against such order, application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Thus, this application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. against order dated 22.01.2020 is not maintainable. 4. As far as the order dated 11.07.2022 is concerned, by that order the Family court has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It may be observed that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C against the order dated 11.07.2022 is suffers from gross delay and undue laches. It is correct that no fix period of limitation has been prescribed for filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it is well settled that such an application has to be filed within a reasonable period. The impugned order was passed on 11.07.2022 and applicant has filed the instant application in the month of January, 2025 and no explanation regarding delay in filing this application has been shown. Further, no material illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order dated 11.07.2022. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or miscarriage of justice. Hence, no case for interference in order dated 11.07.2022 is made out. 5. The application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed. The applicant would be at liberty to file revision against order dated 22.01.2020 in accordance with law. The certified copy of the order dated 22.01.2022 may be returned back to the learned counsel for the applicant after retaining photocopy of the same on the record. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad