Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7201 of 2021 Applicant :- Tanveer Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned recovery warrant dated 19.11.2020 passed by Additional Family Court/Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Rampur in Case No.454 of 2015 under Section 125 (3) CrPC, related to P.S. Ganj, District Rampur and further with the prayer to direct the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur to decide the application u/s 127(2) CrPC bearing Application No.349 of 2016 filed by the applicant dated 20.9.2016 expeditiously within the stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 is the wife and opposite party no.3 is the minor son of the applicant. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 and out of their wedlock a child was born on 4.11.2013. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the parties and the opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicant and other family members u/s 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and thereafter, she has instituted an application under Section 125 CrPC and also simultaneously instituted the application under the Domestic Violence Act bearing Case No.899 of 2014. The application under Section 125 CrPC was allowed by the court below vide order dated 11.8.2015 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs.6000/- per month to opposite party nos.2 and 3 as maintenance.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the aforesaid order dated 11.8.2015 was challenged by the applicant before this Court by means of filing Criminal Revision No.3212 of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 2.9.2015. Thereafter, the court below vide order dated 12.1.2017 issued recovery warrant against the applicant, which was challenged by the applicant before this Court through application u/s 482 No.1063 of 2017 and this Court stayed 50% arrears of maintenance and directed that the applicant would deposit 50% amount of total maintenance and also he would pay monthly maintenance to opposite party nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, on 30.11.2018 the opposite party no.2 has filed divorce petition as she did not want to live with the applicant. On 6.7.2018 the applicant has filed an application under Section 25 of the Wards and Guardians Act bearing Case No.21 of 2018. The opposite party no.2 has claimed Rs.13,000/- in Execution Case No.48 of 2017, Rs.69,000/- in Execution Case No.454/309 and in the meantime the maintenance for the period of 11 months was also claimed against the applicant, so the court below vide order dated 19.11.2020 issued the recovery warrant for the amount of Rs.1,48,000/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that before issuing recovery warrant against the applicant no notice has been sent to him, hence the learned court below has violated the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the learned court below has not properly considered the financial condition of the applicant. The applicant was under impression that the learned court below would decide his application under Section 127(2) CrPC and the award which was fixed by the court below under Section 125 CrPC would be recalled but the learned court below instead of deciding the application under Section 127(2) CrPC issued the recovery warrant against the applicant, which is an abuse of process of law.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.
This Court finds that in compliance of the order dated 18.3.2021 passed by this Court, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur has sent a report to this Court dated 25.3.2021 that the applicant is not appearing in the proceeding of the case before the court below concerned and that is why the case is not being disposed of. Further, the perusal of the impugned recovery warrant also shows that the applicant is avoiding the appearance in the case. Several dates were fixed but he did not appear. The court below has rightly issued the recovery warrant against the applicant. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned recovery warrant issued against the applicant.
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 SP