The Allahabad High Court has intervened in a case where the Family Court imposed an arbitrary condition requiring the applicant to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount for considering a restoration application. The Court modified the order, directing a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 instead, reinforcing that procedural costs under Section 126 CrPC must be reasonable and just.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Akbar Ali, was involved in a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 CrPC initiated by the opposite parties, Meena Begum and others. The Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the applicant due to his non-appearance and allowed the maintenance application by order dated 13.02.2024. Upon learning of the ex-parte order, the applicant filed an application to recall the order dated 13.02.2024.
Key Facts
- The opposite parties filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC against the applicant
- The Family Court issued notices to the applicant, but he failed to appear
- The Family Court proceeded ex-parte and allowed the maintenance application on 13.02.2024
- The applicant, upon receiving knowledge of the ex-parte order, filed a restoration application to recall the order
- The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur, by order dated 22.04.2026, directed the applicant to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount for considering the restoration application
- The applicant challenged this order as illegal and arbitrary, arguing that Section 126 CrPC only permits the imposition of costs, not an arbitrary percentage of the maintenance amount
Procedural History
- Criminal Misc.Case No. 221 of 2023: Filed under Section 125 CrPC by Meena Begum and others
- 13.02.2024: Family Court allows the maintenance application ex-parte
- Misc.Case No. 48 of 2026: Applicant files restoration application to recall the ex-parte order
- 22.04.2026: Principal Judge, Family Court, directs the applicant to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount for considering the restoration application
- Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 23943 of 2026: Filed before the Allahabad High Court to quash the order dated 22.04.2026
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the Family Court's order dated 22.04.2026, which directed the deposit of 50% of the maintenance amount as a condition for considering the restoration application. The applicant contended that the order was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 126 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The primary question before the Court was whether the Family Court could impose an arbitrary condition, such as depositing 50% of the maintenance amount, for considering a restoration application under Section 126 CrPC, or whether such costs must be reasonable and just.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, was illegal and arbitrary. The counsel submitted that Section 126 CrPC only permits the imposition of costs for restoration applications and does not empower the court to demand an arbitrary percentage of the maintenance amount. The counsel further contended that the Family Court's direction to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount was excessive and unjust.
For the Respondent
Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) opposed the submissions raised by the applicant's counsel but did not provide specific counter-arguments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court considered the arguments raised by the applicant's counsel and examined the provisions of Section 126 CrPC, which governs the procedure for hearing maintenance applications. The Court observed that while Section 126(2) CrPC permits the imposition of costs for restoration applications, such costs must be reasonable and just. The Court held that directing the applicant to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount was arbitrary and not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
The Court noted that the Family Court's order lacked a reasoned basis for imposing such a high deposit and modified the condition to a fixed amount of Rs. 1,00,000, which it deemed reasonable for considering the restoration application.
"The order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court dated 22.04.2026 is illegal and arbitrary. The provision under Section 126 CrPC permits the imposition of costs, but such costs must be reasonable and just. Directing the applicant to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount is excessive and lacks legal sanctity."
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court allowed the application with modification. The Court set aside the Family Court's order dated 22.04.2026 to the extent that it directed the deposit of 50% of the maintenance amount. Instead, the Court directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within 15 days as costs. Upon compliance with this condition, the Family Court was directed to consider the restoration application on its merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Costs Under Section 126 CrPC Must Be Reasonable
- The judgment reinforces that courts cannot impose arbitrary conditions for considering restoration applications under Section 126 CrPC
- Costs imposed must be reasonable, just, and proportionate to the circumstances of the case
- Practitioners should challenge orders that impose excessive or unreasonable costs, citing this judgment as precedent
Restoration Applications Require Fair Consideration
- The Court's decision underscores the importance of fair procedure in restoration applications
- Ex-parte orders, while permissible, must be subject to recall upon valid grounds, and the conditions for recall must not be onerous
- This judgment serves as a reminder that procedural fairness is a cornerstone of justice, and courts must ensure that restoration applications are not unduly burdened by arbitrary conditions
Implications for Family Courts
- Family Courts must exercise caution while imposing conditions for restoration applications
- The judgment sets a precedent that fixed, reasonable costs are preferable to percentage-based deposits
- Legal practitioners can use this judgment to argue against arbitrary or excessive conditions imposed by lower courts in similar matters
