Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65558 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32067 of 2024 Applicant :- Arvind Sen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Jeet Singh,Ran Jeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Chandra Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jyoti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned order dated 29-07-2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Criminal Misc.Case No. 711 of 2024, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. arising out of case no. 973 of 2022 (Smt. Radha Sen & another Vs. Arvind Sen) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district Jhansi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the the learned Family Court had passed the ex-parte order dated 21.12.2023 directing the applicant to pay maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and her minor daughter. The applicant, upon becoming aware of the ex-parte order, filed a recall application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the learned Family Court on 29.07.2024. The applicants have challenged both the orders by means of the instant application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the ex-parte order was passed without proper service of notice, and the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the recall application was rejected by the Family Court without considering the grounds raised by the applicant. It is also brought to the attention that the applicant has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, indicating his intention to resolve the matrimonial issues with the opposite party. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that no illegality or perversity exists in the orders so as to warrant interference by this Court. He further submits that merely passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband's behest, coupled with the wife's non-compliance with that decree without any sufficient reason, is not by itself sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC, which denies maintenance to a wife who refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, (2025) 3 SCC 33. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, including the impugned orders, this Court finds that the court below has considered all relevant aspects of the case. The order awarding interim maintenance cannot be said to be arbitrary or passed without application of judicial mind. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the court below. 6.The instant application lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad