Allahabad High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)’ by the applicant challenging the order passed by the Family Court, recalling an ex-parte order which had dismissed a maintenance application filed by the applicant’s wife and daughter under Section 125 CrPC for want of prosecution, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., while dismissing the application, noted that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation and upon fulfilling certain conditions, order passed under Section 125 CrPC can be recalled or modified.
Background
The applicant challenged the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, which reinstated a maintenance application filed by his wife and daughter under Section 125 CrPC. The original application for maintenance was dismissed due to the non-prosecution by the applicant’s wife and daughter. Subsequently, a recall application was filed, and the Family Court recalled the dismissal order and restored the maintenance application to its original position. The applicant filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the order that restored the maintenance application.
Contention of the Applicant
The main contention of the applicant was that the Family Court erred in recalling the dismissal order under Section 125 CrPC The applicant argued that once an order is passed in criminal proceedings, dismissing an application under Section 125 CrPC for want of prosecution, it cannot be recalled or modified due to the bar imposed by Section 362 CrPC.
Contention of the State
The counsel for State argued that Section 362 CrPC allows for exceptions as provided by the CrPC or any other law. They pointed out that Section 127 CrPC permits the Court to alter or modify orders passed under Section 125 CrPC, thus making an exception to the bar imposed by Section 362 CrPC.
Decision and Analysis
After hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, the Court found that the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed for want of prosecution on, and subsequently recalled and restored to its original number by the Family Court’s order. The Court noted that Section 126(3) CrPC gives the Court power to make just and proper orders in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, including recalling a dismissal for want of prosecution.
The Court further examined the applicability of Section 362 CrPC and observed that the bar imposed by this section does not apply if there are provisions within the CrPC that permit the recall or alteration of a judgment or final order, specifically, Section 127 CrPC allows for the alteration of maintenance orders, indicating that the legislature intended for the Magistrate to retain jurisdiction to make necessary changes to orders under Section 125 CrPC as circumstances require. The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a piece of social justice legislation aimed at ensuring maintenance for wives, children, and parents, and should be interpreted in a manner that advances the cause of social justice.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 , which emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC to achieve social justice, and the legislative intent that the Magistrate should have continuing jurisdiction over maintenance orders to address changing circumstances. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, (2020) 13 SCC 172 to affirm that the embargo of Section 362 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under Section 125 CrPC
The Court, therefore, rejected the applicant’s contentions and upheld the Family Court’s order to recall and restore the maintenance application. The Court further directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC expeditiously, preferably within one year, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party.
[Rajkumar v. State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1743, order dated 14-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Applicant: R.V. Pandey
Advocate for the State: Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, A.G.A., Ashutosh Gupta, Ashutosh Sharma, Gyan Prakash Verma
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
