Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28845 of 2019 Applicant :- Vikki Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lok Nath Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Lok Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to quash the order dated 25.06.2019 and ex-parte order dated 13.05.2019 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 881 of 2018 (Smt. Manvi Raj Garg Vs. Vikki Gupta) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad by which the learned Family Court has rejected the application given by the applicant to set aside the ex-parte order and to take on record the written statement filed by him.
The submission of the learned counsel is that the opposite party no. 2 is his legally married wife and the marriage was solemnized on 09.05.2016. The opposite party no. 2 came to her matrimonial house. The applicant is in private job in UAE but the wife of the applicant wanted to reside in UAE but his husband also having obligation and liability of old ill parents and other family members and as such the aforesaid proposal of the opposite party no. 2 was ignored and clearly refused and it appears that the same has become the annoyance of the opposite party no. 2 due to some dispute that has occurred between the husband and wife and due to said reasons the opposite party no. 2 returned back to her Maika on account of her own sweet will and also kept her ornaments and Stri Dhan with herself. Time to time the applicant and other family members has also reached at the parental house of the opposite party no. 2 and the applicant has made all his sincere and bonafide efforts to bring back opposite party no. 2 to her matrimonial house but she is not ready to join the company of her husband. She filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the husband for maintenance before the family court.
The case was proceeded ex-parte by order dated 13.05.2019 and the recall application was rejected by the court below by order dated 20.06.2019.
From perusal of the order itself, it appears that the learned court below has found that the application for recalling the ex-parte order was not given by the husband himself, but by an attorney holder. It was also found by the court below that earlier the husband had appeared and had filed a power but subsequently on several date fixed by the court, he did not appear, and therefore, the case was proceeded ex-parte.
In that back ground the learned court below concluded that the husband himself has not filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte order, therefore, the learned court below rejected the same.
Legally, I do not find any error in the impugned order, when the applicant had already appeared before the court below earlier, he could have filed application through his counsel and no body prevented him to file such application, but instead of filing the application by himself he referred to get it filed through the attorney holder and the learned court rightly rejected the same, I do not find any force in the application of the applicant and the application is hereby dismissed.
It is however, observed that if the husband files a fresh application for setting aside the ex-parte order within 30 days from today before the learned court below, the learned court below shall take the same on record and proceed to disposed of the same in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Bhanu