Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 772 of 2019 Applicant :- Mustaq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi by means of which recovery warrant against the applicant has been issued.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant seeking maintenance which came to be allowed in the year 2014. However, it is stated that the order which was passed, was ex-parte and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of the judgement, that is, 10.9.2014. It is stated that the applicant was completely unaware of the judgement and order dated 10.9.2014. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. were initiated in which the recovery warrant was issued to recover the outstanding amounts has per rules by means of the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi.
Admittedly, the judgement and order dated 10.9.2014 has not been challenged by the applicant. The order directing recovery warrant was issued on 16.10.2017 which is more than a year back. Even after the order was passed, the applicant took no steps for payment of the maintenance amount. From perusal of the order-sheet that has been enclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit reveals that on 25.9.2018 non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant. It is evident that when non bailable warrant was issued then the applicant has come rushing to this Court. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.10.2017 reveals that the Family Court had categorically observed that the applicant was not present and he was deliberately not paying the amount of maintenance to the opposite party no. 2.
This Court does not find any error or illegality in the order issuing recovery warrant. This application is lacking in merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji,J.)