Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38843 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32591 of 2024 Applicant :- Arshad Qureshi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dheer Singh,Ram Bahadur Singh,Suresh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 29.05.2024 as well as order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Misc. Case No.275 of 2023 (Smt. Jeba Vs. Arshad), under Section 128 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi. 3. Perusal of record shows that opposite party no.2 was granted maintenance by the Family Court vider order dated 16.11.2022. It appears that opposite party no.2 has initiated proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance. By impugned order dated 29.05.2024 the said application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. has been registered and notice was issued to the opposite party (applicant herein). Similarly, by order dated 15.07.2024 service of notice on the opposite party (applicant herein) was held sufficient. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned orders are illegal, null & void and that as per provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, there is no provision of service of notice by way of registered post and thus, service of notice on a party can not be deemed suffient by way of registered post. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon following case laws :- i) Guthikonda Sri Hari Prasada Rao Vs. Guthikonda Lakshmi Rajyma, 1991 0 Supreme(AP) 251. ii) Revappa Vs. Gurusanthawwa, 1959 LawSuit (Kar) 106. iii) Parambot Thayunni Balakrishna Menon Vs. Govind Krishnan(minor), 1958 0 Supreme (Mad) 265. 5. Learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. It is well settled that proceedings under Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 are basically civil in nature. Maintenance proceeding can not be treated at par with other criminal proceedings in as much as there is element of expeditious consideration for grant of maintenance. Maintenance proceedings under said chapter by a helpless wife or children are essentially of civil proceeding with a summary remedy. In such proceedings service of notice by registered post on the respondent was a valid service. In these proceedings there is no such legal bar that notice cannot be affected upon opposite party by way of registered post. None of the case law referred by learned counsel for the applicant deals with cases under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. Further, by impugned order dated 29.05.2024 merely the application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. has been registered. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. Similarly, by impugned order dated 15.07.2024, the Family Court held that as registered letters have been sent to opposite party (applicant herein) twice and recorded satisfaction that opposite party (applicant herein) was evading service of notice and held the service of notice sufficient. There is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Further, the applicant has opportunity to appear before the Family Court concerned and may put up his case there. 7. Considering entire facts of the matter and position of law, it cannot be said that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or there is any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is wholly devoid of any merit, hence liable to be dismissed. 8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 RKM Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad