Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50922 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31587 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 01.08.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar, in misc. case No. 155/11/2023, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recalling of the order dated 06.10.2018 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is husband of opposite party No. 2 and that the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are their children. It was submitted that brother of opposite party No. 2 has separated from his parents and thus, opposite party No. 2 went to her parental home to take care of her mother and grandfather. The applicant has tried to bring her back but in vain and applicant has also filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 27.01.2011 making false allegations and in that case applicant has put up his appearance and filed his written statement. It was further submitted that on 22.05.2012 the case was proceeded ex-parte against the applicant. The applicant has filed an application on 11.09.2012 to recall the said ex-parte order and that application remained pending. The application for interim maintenance was rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 04.06.2013. The opposite party No. 2 has preferred a criminal revision against that order and matter was remanded back by the Revisional Court. It was submitted that by order dated 10.09.2014 the Family court has awarded interim maintenance in favour of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. Later on matter was settled between the parties and the opposite party No. 2 started living with applicant but after some time, she again started pursuing the said case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ultimately the case was decided by ex-parte judgment dated 06.10.2018. When applicant came to know about the said ex-parte judgment dated 06.10.2018, he has filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on 21.03.2023 to recall the said ex-parte judgement dated 06.10.2018, which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 01.08.2024 in an arbitrary manner. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Perusal of record shows that in the above referred case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the applicant has put up his appearance and filed his written statement, however it appears that thereafter both the parties have remained absent for long and later on opposite party No. 2 has appeared before the court and ultimately the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided vide judgement dated 06.10.2018. It is apparent that applicant has knowledge about the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. since beginning. The aforesaid application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2023. Learned Family court has noted that the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided on merits and it is not an ex-parte judgment. Perusal of judgment dated 06.10.2018 shows that there is nothing to indicate that said judgement is ex-parte. Merely because the opposite party No. 2 has not led any evidence, it cannot be said that the impugned judgement is ex-parte. Learned Family court has considered the averments of written statement of opposite party No. 2 while passing the judgement dated 06.10.2018. Further, there was long and undue delay in filing the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. 7. Considering facts of the matter, the application of opposite party No. 2 has been rejected by the Family court by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order dated 01.08.2024. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or any miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad