# Sahabi Khatoon v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1073
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 23246 of 2023
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sahabi-khatoon-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50924
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 126(3) -
Against rejection of recall application -
Validy
of
-
Applicant
(wife)
filed
application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. - Opposite
party no. 2 (husband) filed objections -
Applicant's St.ment recorded, yet due to
dilatory tactics of opposite party no. 2,
proceedings remained pending for over
twenty-one years - On account of his noncooperation, Family Court thrice directed
ex parte proceedings ,but each time
recalled
orders
on
applications
by
opposite party no. 2 - Opposite party no.
2, employed as Surveyor in coal fields
earning Rs. 96,616/- per month, has not
paid any maintenance to applicant since
2002 - Even interim maintenance order
directing payment of Rs. 5,000/- p.m has
not
been
complied
with
-
Recovery
warrant for Rs. 12,00,000/- issued u/s
125(3) Cr.P.C. has neither been complied
with nor challenged - Application u/s
126(2) Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no. 2
after statutory limitation period of three
months
without
delay
condonation
application - Perusal of impugned order
reveals that Family Court recorded specific
findings against opposite party no. 2
regarding his conduct and dilatory tactics
adopted by him in proceedings u/s 125
Cr.P.C. for last 21 years - Court observed
that plea of opposite party no. 2 was
untenable and he misused judicial process
- Despite these, recall application u/s
126(2) Cr.P.C. allowed without recording
cogent reasons, contrary to mandate of
proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which
clearly St.s setting aside ex parte order
only upon showing good cause - Thus,
impugned order, quashed. (Para 8, 10)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Sahabi Khatoon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1073
Prahlad Jat and Ors. 2017(9) SCC 340 and
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central
Bureau of Investigation 2019 (14) SCC
328. The relevant paras of Swapan Kumar
Chatterjee (supra) are as under:

"10. The first part of this Section
which
is
permissive
gives
purely
discretionary authority to the criminal court
and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial
or other proceedings under the Code to act
in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to
summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to
examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall
and
re-examine
any
person
already
examined. The second part, which is
mandatory, imposes an obligation on the
court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to
recall and re-examine any such person if
his evidence appears to be essential to the
just decision of the case.

11. It is well settled that the
power conferred Under Section 311 should
be invoked by the court only to meet the
ends of justice. The power is to be
exercised only for strong and valid reasons
and it should be exercised with great
caution and circumspection. The court has
vide power under this Section to even recall
witnesses for re-examination or further
examination, necessary in the interest of
justice, but the same has to be exercised
after taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of each case. The power
under this provision shall not be exercised
if the court is of the view that the
application has been filed as an abuse of
the process of law."

17. The aim of every Court is to
discover the truth. Section 311 Code of
Criminal Procedure is one of many such
provisions which strengthen the arms of a
court in its effort to unearth the truth by
procedure sanctioned by law. At the same
time, the discretionary power vested Under
Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure
has to be exercised judiciously for strong
and valid reasons and with caution and
circumspection to meet the ends of justice."

15. In the light of facts mentioned
herein-above, this Court is of the view that
at a very belated stage, witness cannot be
recalled for asking frivolous questions and
that too on the advice of a new counsel.
The law is very well settled that change of
counsel cannot be a ground for recalling the
witness. Not only this, after examinationin-chief, cross-examination should have
been completed on the very same date and
at this very belated stage, there would be no
purpose for cross-examination as it is
practically not possible for a witness to
reply such technical questions. Power
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is always to be
exercised very consciously for a very
strong and unrebuttable reasons and not in
a very casual manner as in the present case.

16. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances of the case as well as
judgments of Apex Court and this Court,
instant 482 application lacks merit and is
accordingly, dismissed.

17. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1073
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 23246 of 2023

Sahabi Khatoon ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Satya Priya Upadhyay

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Om Prakash Yadav, Sri Prashant
Kumar Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 126(3) -
Against rejection of recall application -
Validy
of
-
Applicant
(wife)
filed
application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. - Opposite
party no. 2 (husband) filed objections -
Applicant's St.ment recorded, yet due to
dilatory tactics of opposite party no. 2,
proceedings remained pending for over
twenty-one years - On account of his noncooperation, Family Court thrice directed
ex parte proceedings ,but each time
recalled
orders
on
applications
by
opposite party no. 2 - Opposite party no.
2, employed as Surveyor in coal fields
earning Rs. 96,616/- per month, has not
paid any maintenance to applicant since
2002 - Even interim maintenance order
directing payment of Rs. 5,000/- p.m has
not
been
complied
with
-
Recovery
warrant for Rs. 12,00,000/- issued u/s
125(3) Cr.P.C. has neither been complied
with nor challenged - Application u/s
126(2) Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no. 2
after statutory limitation period of three
months
without
delay
condonation
application - Perusal of impugned order
reveals that Family Court recorded specific
findings against opposite party no. 2
regarding his conduct and dilatory tactics
adopted by him in proceedings u/s 125
Cr.P.C. for last 21 years - Court observed
that plea of opposite party no. 2 was
untenable and he misused judicial process
- Despite these, recall application u/s
126(2) Cr.P.C. allowed without recording
cogent reasons, contrary to mandate of
proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which
clearly St.s setting aside ex parte order
only upon showing good cause - Thus,
impugned order, quashed. (Para 8, 10)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316

2. Delhi Admn. Vs Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7
SCC 296

3. Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik Vs Pradnya Prakash
Khadekar, (2017) 5 SCC 496, (Paras 13, 14

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Satya Priya Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Government Advocate assisted by Mr.
Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief
Holder for the State of U.P./opposite party
no. 1 and Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party no. 2.

Relief

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by
the applicant-Sahabi Khatoon with a prayer
to quash the order dated 05.06.2023 passed
by Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ballia in Criminal Misc. Case No.
321 of 2022 (Jamal Khan vs. Sahavi
Khatoon), whereby an application under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. of the opposite
party no.2 has been allowed.

Issue

3. The principle question of law that
falls for consideration of this Court in the
present litigation is whether the Family
Court was justified in allowing the recall
application U/s 126(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the
Cr.P.C.') of the opposite party no. 2
(husband).

Crux of the matter
3 All. Sahabi Khatoon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1075

4. This case is an illustration of how a
matter can be delayed for years and also an
example of abuse of the process of the
Court. The proceeding under Section 125
Cr.P.C. is pending for the last 21 years and
no amount of maintenance has been paid to
the wife by the husband who is a salaried
person and presently he is getting a salary
of Rs. 96,616/- per month.

Factual Matrix

5. Brief facts of the case which are
required to be stated are as under :-

5.1-The
applicant-Sahabi
Khatoon is wife of opposite party no. 2
namely Jamal Khan. The marriage of the
applicant with the opposite party no. 2 was
solemnized on 12.06.1986 and from their
wedlock, three sons were born but on
account of acrimonious relation between
them, their marriage was not successful and
as a result thereof, the opposite party no.2
divorced her after 13 years of marriage but
he kept his three sons with him. Thereafter
she has been thrown out of her matrimonial
home on 20.07.1999 by the opposite party
no.2. As such, the applicant has been living
in her parental home since July, 1999.

5.2-On
20.12.2002,
applicant
moved an application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.
2,000/- per month from the opposite party
no. 2 who at that time was getting salary of
Rs. 15,000/-, in which opposite party no. 2
has filed an objection after one year and
three months on 29.03.2004.

5.3-The opposite party no. 2 after
filing
his
objection
became
absent,
therefore, the Family Court passed an order
dated 26.06.2005 to proceed ex-parte in the
matter but the said order was recalled after
about three months vide order dated
12.09.2005, subject to payment of cost of
Rs. 300/-.

5.4-Thereafter, opposite party no.
2 again became absent, therefore, Family
Court, second time passed an order dated
09.10.2006 to proceed ex-parte in the
matter but again, opposite party no. 2
moved an application for recall of the order
dated 09.10.2006, which was allowed after
two years and seven months vide order
dated 26.05.2009, subject to payment of
cost of Rs. 500/-.

5.5-In
the
mean
time,
the
evidence of the applicant was recorded on
15.12.2006 and date was fixed for her
cross-examination by the opposite party no.
2 but he, with a view to linger on the
proceedings, did not cross-examine her.
After fixing several dates, last opportunity
to the opposite party no. 2 for crossexamination was given on 13.12.2011 but
again he did not comply the said order and
on account of his non co-operation,
proceeding was lingered on.

5.6-The Family Court for the
third time, passed an order on 01.11.2012
to proceed ex-parte in the matter but again,
on the recall application filed by the
opposite party no. 2, the order dated
01.11.2012 has been recalled.

5.7-At this stage, after about
twelve years of the pendency of the
proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.PC.,
applicant moved an application dated
10.11.2014 seeking interim maintenance of
Rs. 10,000/- per month from the opposite
party no. 2 mentioning therein that the
opposite party no. 2 is posted on the post of
Surveyor in coal field (colliery), District
Burdwan and getting salary of Rs. 60,000/-
per month. In the interim maintenance
application, it is also mentioned by the
applicant that she is aged about 45 years
and has no means of her livelihood. The
said application dated 10.11.2014 of the
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant has been allowed vide order dated
05.05.2015 directing the opposite party no.
2 to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month towards an
interim maintenance to the applicant.

5.8-Later on, applicant became
ill, therefore, she could not pursue her case.
As a result thereof, her main application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected on
25.11.2017 for
want of
prosecution.
Thereafter, applicant moved a recall
application dated 21.04.2018 under Section
126 Cr.P.C. for recall of the order dated
25.11.2017, which has been allowed vide
order dated 10.12.2018 and the order dated
25.11.2017 has been recalled restoring the
case on its original number.

5.9-Thereafter fresh notice was
issued to the opposite party no.2 and
publication was also done in the news
paper on 19.12.2019. On 13.01.2020,
service of notice on the opposite party no.2
was treated sufficient and further on
12.02.2020 order was passed to proceed exparte in the matter. Thereafter application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the applicant
was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2021
directing the opposite party no. 2 to pay a
sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the
applicant from the date of presentation of
the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
but no amount of maintenance has been
paid by the opposite party no. 2, therefore,
applicant having no option left moved an
application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-
from the opposite party no. 2, on which
recovery warrant for recovery of Rs.
12,00,000/- has been issued against the
opposite party no. 2 on 25.01 2023.

5.10-As soon as the opposite
party no. 2 came to know about the above
application under Section 125 (3) of the
applicant, he moved an application under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. dated 20.04.2022
for
recall
of
ex-parte
order
dated
18.12.2021 mainly on the ground that there
was a compromise between the applicant
and opposite party no. 2 and it was agreed
between them that they will not appear in
the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C..
It is also alleged by the opposite party no. 2
that
he
was
not
aware
about
the
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
initiated by the applicant as no notice or
summon was received to him.

5.11-Against the said application
dated 20.04.2022, applicant has filed an
objection dated 26.08.2022 denying the
grounds taken by the opposite party no. 2 in
his recall application dated 20.04.2022.

5.12-The Family Court vide order
dated 05.06.2023 has allowed the recall
application
dated
20.04.2022
of
the
opposite party no. 2 by observing that
misuse of judicial process done by the
opposite party no. 2 can be compensated by
imposing harsh penalties. Accordingly, the
order dated 18.12.2021 has been recalled
subject to payment of cost of Rs. 80,000/-
by the opposite party no. 2 till 04.08.2023
with the observation that in case, the said
order is not complied with by the opposite
party no. 2, the order dated 05.06.2023
shall automatically become ineffective.

5.13-The opposite party no. 2 did
not pay Rs. 80,000/- in compliance of order
dated
05.06.2023
within
time
by
04.08.2023 and on the last day, he moved
an application dated 04.08.2023 seeking
further time, which has been allowed on the
same day by the Family Court without
giving opportunity of hearing to the
applicant and to file objection on the said
application granting one month further time
to him to comply the order dated
05.06.2023 by 04.09.2023.

5.14-Thereafter, opposite party
no. 2 deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on
04.09.2023.
3 All. Sahabi Khatoon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1077

5.15-The
above
order
dated
05.06.2023 is the subject matter of
challenge in the present application by the
applicant-wife.

Submissions on behalf of applicant
(wife)

6. The main substratum of argument
of learned counsel for the applicant is that
after recall of final order dated 18.12.2021,
the above proceeding under Section 125
Cr.P.C. again got pending since 2002 but
till date, no maintenance has been paid by
the opposite party no. 2. The application of
the
applicant
for
granting
interim
maintenance had been allowed vide order
dated 05.05.2015 but said order has neither
been
complied
with
nor
has
been
challenged by the opposite party no. 2.
Much emphasis has been given by
contending that though the Family Court, in
the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 has
recorded the finding that the opposite party
no. 2 was very much aware about the
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., even
then the recall application under Section
126(2) Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2
has been illegally allowed without any
cogent reason, therefore, the same is liable
to be quashed. It is also submitted that
since in the order dated 05.06.2023, it was
observed that in case, said order is not
complied with by the opposite party no.2,
the
same
shall
automatically
stands
ineffective, then on non compliance of the
condition mentioned in the order dated
05.06.2023 by the opposite party no.2,
Family Court was not empowered to
modify the order dated 05.06.2023 vide
order dated 04.08.2023 granting one month
further time to the opposite party no. 2 to
deposit
Rs.
80,000/-
without
giving
opportunity of hearing to the applicant, as
such, the order dated 04.08.2023 is also
illegal in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Submissions on behalf of opposite
party no. 2 (husband)

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2
submits that after granting further time by
the Family Court on 04.08.2023, opposite
party no. 2 has deposited a sum of Rs.
80,000/- on 04.09.2023 and proceeding
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is going on but
he could not dispute any factual argument
advanced on behalf of the applicant, as
noted above. The opposite party no.2 in his
counter affidavit dated 02.11.2023 also did
not say any thing about payment of
maintenance to applicant. On putting query
and giving offer to the opposite party no.2
for payment of arrears of amount of interim
maintenance, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, upon instruction,
submits that opposite party no.2 is not
inclined to pay any amount of interim
maintenance to the applicant pursuant to
order dated 05.05.2015 and he flatly
refused to pay single penny to the
applicant.

Discussion

8. Having heard the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the record, I find that the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the
applicant (wife) 20.12.2002, in which the
opposite party no. 2 (husband) had filed an
objection on 20.03.2004. The statement of
the applicant was recorded way back in the
year 2006, but on account of delaying tactic
adopted by the opposite party no.2 as noted
above in preceding paragraph no. 5, the
proceeding is still pending for the last
twenty one years. On non co-operation of
opposite party no. 2, thrice Family Court
passed the order to proceed ex-parte in the
matter on 23.06.2005, 26.05.2009 and
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
01.11.2012 but on the recall applications
filed by the opposite party no. 2, said
orders have been recalled thrice. The
applicant is posted on the post of Surveyor
in coal field (colliery), District Burdwan
and he is presently getting salary of Rs.
96,616/- per month but since 2002 till date,
not a single penny has been paid by him to
the applicant towards her maintenance. The
order dated 05.05.2015, whereby opposite
party no.2 was directed to pay an interim
maintenance of Rs. 5000/-, has also not
been complied with. On the application
under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. of the
applicant, recovery warrant for recovery of
Rs. 12,00,000/- from the opposite party no.
2 has been issued on 25.01.2023 but the
said order has also not been complied with
nor challenged by the opposite party no. 2.
The application under Section 126(2)
Cr.P.C. has been moved by the opposite
party no.2 after statutory limitation period
of three months without delay condonation
application.

9. Here it would be relevant to quote
Section 126 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

Section 126 Cr.P.C.

(1) Proceedings under section
125 may be taken against any person in
any district-

(a) where he is, or

(b) where he or his wife, resides,
or

(c) where he last resided with his
wife, or as the case may be, with the mother
of the illegitimate child.

(2)
All
evidence
in
such
proceedings shall be taken in the presence
of the person against whom an order for
payment of maintenance is proceed to be
made, or, when his personal attendance is
dispensed with, in the presence of his
pleader, and shall be recorded in the
manner prescribed for summons- cases:

Provided that if the Magistrate is
satisfied that the person against whom an
order for payment of maintenance is
proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding
service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the
Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear
and determine the case ex parte and any
order so made may be set aside for good
cause shown on an application made within
three months from the date thereof subject
to such terms including terms at to payment
of costs to the opposite party as the
Magistrate may think just and proper.

(3) The Court in dealing with
applications under section 125 shall have
power to make such order as to costs as
may be just.

10. On perusal of impugned order
dated 05.06.2023, I find that the Family
Court has recorded several findings against
the opposite party no. 2 about his act and
conduct as well as modus-operandi adopted
by him for delaying the proceeding under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the last 21 years. It
is also mentioned by the Family Court that
court is not agree with the plea of the
opposite party no. 2 and he has misused the
judicial
process,
even
then
recall
application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. of
the opposite party no.2 has been allowed
without recording cogent reasons, whereas
proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. clearly
states that ex-parte order may be set-aside
upon 'good cause' only.

11. As per Black's law dictionary, the
term 'good cause' generally means a
substantial reason amounting in law to
legal excuse for failing to perform an act
required by law. Phrase 'good cause'
depends upon circumstances of individual
case and finding of its existence lies largely
3 All. Sahabi Khatoon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1079
in discretion of officer or court to which
decision is committed.

12. In the present case, no strong
reason sufficient in law to presume good
cause has been shown by the Family Court
while allowing the recall application of
opposite party no. 2 vide impugned order
dated 05.06.2023, hence, the same is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

13. The purpose and object of Section
125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief
to an applicant. The remedy provided by
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature.
The Amendment Act, 2001 also introduced
an express provision for grant of 'interim
maintenance' under Section 125 Cr.P.C and
power has been vested to the concerned
Court to order for making a monthly
allowance towards interim maintenance
during pendency of the petition. The third
proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C. (inserted
vide Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001)
provide that the proceeding for interim
maintenance, shall as far as possible, be
disposed of within 60 days from the date of
service of notice on the contesting spouse.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC
316 has held as under:-

"Section 125 CrPC is a measure
of social justice and is specially enacted to
protect women and children and as noted
by the Apex Court in Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal Vs. Veena Kaushal falls
within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution
of India. It is meant to achieve a social
purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy
and destitution. It provides a speedy
remedy for the supply of food, clothing and
shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect
to fundamental rights and natural duties of
a man to maintain his wife, children and
parents when they are unable to maintain
themselves."

15. In the light of object of Section
125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court cannot delay
grant of maintenance to wife and there is
no escape for a able bodied husband from
the responsibility of giving sustenance
money to his wife despite soured relations.
The delay in adjudication by the family
Court is not only against human right but
also against basic embodiment of dignity of
an individual. The husband cannot take
subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of
living with dignity.

16. The husband cannot be permitted
to exploit the slow justice delivery system
to deny what was legitimately due to the
wife for her. It is well settled that the
dilatory tactics by any of the parties in a
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has
to be sternly dealt with, for which family
Court has to be alive to the fact that the
litigation before him pertains to emotional
fragmentation and delay can feed it to
grow.

17. It is the responsibility of the Court
to ensure that the wheels of justice turn
swiftly, especially when it comes to matters
as vital as spousal maintenance. Delay in
providing
maintenance
not
only
exacerbates the financial hardship faced by
wife but also perpetuates a sense of
insecurity and inequality. Legal process
should not become impediments to timely
justice.

18. It is also well settled that the
finality of the judgment is absolutely
imperative and great sanctity is attached to
the final judgment. Permitting the parties to
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reopen the concluded judgments without
any reasonable justification is clearly an
abuse of the process of law and would have
far-reaching
adverse
impact
on
the
administration of justice. In the present
case, the opposite party no. 2 has four times
filed recall application as noted above
which
amounts
to
obstructing
the
administration of justice and interference
with the due course of judicial proceedings.

19. The Apex Court in Delhi Admn.
v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296
deprecated the practice of filing of
applications
for
"clarification",
"modification"
or
"recall"
of
final
judgments or orders. It was held in the said
judgment that a party cannot be permitted
to circumvent or bypass the circulation
procedure
provided
in
the
provision
pertaining to review and indirectly obtain a
hearing in the open Court by filing an
application for modification or recall. Such
an application deserves to be dismissed
with costs.

20. The Apex Court in the case of
Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya
Prakash Khadekar, (2017) 5 SCC 496
has held as under:-

"13. This Court must view with
disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse
the process. The sanctity of the judicial
process will be seriously eroded if such
attempts are not dealt with firmly. A
litigant who takes liberties with the truth or
with the procedures of the Court should be
left in no doubt about the consequences to
follow. Others should not venture along the
same path in the hope or on a misplaced
expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary
costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in
order to ensure that in litigation, as in the
law which is practised in our country, there
is no premium on the truth.

14. Courts across the legal
system-this
Court
not
being
an
exception-are choked with litigation.
Frivolous and groundless filings constitute
a serious menace to the administration of
justice. They consume time and clog the
infrastructure. Productive resources which
should be deployed in the handling of
genuine causes are dissipated in attending
to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by
prolonging dead issues and pursuing
worthless causes. No litigant can have a
vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as
the present case exemplifies, the process of
dispensing justice is misused by the
unscrupulous to the detriment of the
legitimate.
The
present
case
is
an
illustration of how a simple issue has
occupied the time of the courts and of how
successive applications have been filed to
prolong the inevitable. The person in whose
favour the balance of justice lies has in the
process been left in the lurch by repeated
attempts to revive a stale issue. This
tendency can be curbed only if courts
across the system adopt an institutional
approach which penalises such behaviour.
Liberal access to justice does not mean
access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong
message must be conveyed that courts of
justice will not be allowed to be disrupted
by litigative strategies designed to profit
from the delays of the law. Unless remedial
action is taken by all courts here and now
our society will breed a legal culture based
on evasion instead of abidance. It is the
duty of every court to firmly deal with such
situations. The imposition of exemplary
costs is a necessary instrument which has
to be deployed to weed out, as well as to
prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is
only then that the courts can set apart time
to resolve genuine causes and answer the
concerns of those who are in need of
justice. Imposition of real time costs is also
3 All. Parashuram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1081
necessary to ensure that access to courts is
available
to
citizens
with
genuine
grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be
shut to legitimate causes simply by the
weight of undeserving cases which flood
the system. Such a situation cannot be
allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not
merely a matter of discretion but a duty
and obligation cast upon all courts to
ensure that the legal system is not exploited
by those who use the forms of the law to
defeat or delay justice. We commend all
courts to deal with frivolous filings in the
same manner."

Result

21. As a fallout and consequence of
above discussion, the impugned order dated
05.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Case
No. 321 of 2022 is liable to be quashed and
is hereby quashed and the order dated
18.12.2021 passed in Maintenance Case
No. 1500091 of 2014 (old no.381/2002),
(Sahavi Khatoon Vs.Jamal Khan), under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, District Ballia is restored.

22. This Court is of the view that in
different circumstances, an inherent power
may be exercised in different ways to
achieve its ultimate object. Accordingly, in
order to secure the end of justice, the
applicant-Jamal Khan (husband) is directed
to pay entire arrears of maintenance
amount to the applicant-Sahabi Khatoon
(wife) within one month in accordance with
above order dated 18.12.2021 (i.e. at the
rate of Rs.5,000/-per month from the date
of presentation of the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 20.12.2002) and
in future also he shall pay the current
amount of maintenance on the 10th day of
each month to the applicant, failing which,
learned Family Court concerned shall
immediately initiate recovery proceeding,
etc. against the opposite party no.2
(husband) in accordance with law in order
to ensure the payment of entire amount of
maintenance to the applicant, who has not
received single penny for the last 21 years.

23. Accordingly with the aforesaid
observations and directions, the instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed
by the applicant-Sahabi Khatoon (wife) is
allowed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1081
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 24793 of 2023

Parashuram & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Yatish Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri Prashant
Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 498-A & 326 - D.P. Act, 1961 -
Sections 3⁄4 - Opposite party no. 2, father
of victim, lodged F.I.R. against applicants
- It was alleged that marriage of his
daughter
with
applicant
no.
1,
was
solemnized and due to non-fulfillment of
additional
dowry
demand,
she
was
subjected to cruelty and they sent back to
her parental home - After investigation,
charge-sheet
submitted
against
all
accused persons -After framing of charge,
trial proceeded and St.ments of informant
and victim, wife of applicant no. 1,