Hon'ble High Court had Clarified that the recall/restoration was maintainable in the interest of justice : Family Courts do not become functus officio after passing final orders in maintenance cases : Dismissed Maintenance Case? You Can Still Seek Recall, Rules High Court : Dismissal for Non-Prosecution Doesn’t Bar Recall in Maintenance Cases: HC Ruling

 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court Allows Recall in Dismissed Maintenance Petition: Smt. Hema & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2024)

---

📌 Court: Allahabad High Court
🧑‍⚖️ Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
🗓️ Date of Judgment: 16 May 2024
🧾 Citation: 2024:AHC:89029
👩‍⚖️ Case Type: Article 227 Petition
📂 Case No.: 6584 of 2023
🎯 Key Issue: Whether a Family Court can entertain a recall application after dismissing a Section 125 CrPC petition for non-prosecution.

---

📝 Brief Facts:

• The petitioners (Smt. Hema and her child) filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC in 2014, which was initially allowed ex parte in 2016.

• The ex parte order was recalled in 2018 upon the respondent husband's application.

• On 29.10.2022, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Family Court.

• On the same day, the petitioners filed a recall/restoration application, which was dismissed on 02.01.2023.

• The Family Court held that restoration was not legally maintainable after dismissal and that a fresh Section 125 CrPC case could be filed instead.

---

⚖️ Legal Issues Framed:

1. Can the Family Court entertain a recall application in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC?

2. Does Section 362 CrPC bar such recall in maintenance cases?

3. Does the Court become functus officio after disposal under Section 125?

---

🧑‍⚖️ Observations of the High Court:

• Section 125(1) CrPC allows the Magistrate to pass orders “from time to time”, implying continuous jurisdiction.

• Section 127 CrPC provides for alteration or cancellation of maintenance orders based on changed circumstances.

• Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits review or alteration of a signed judgment except for clerical errors, does not act as a bar in Section 125 CrPC proceedings.

---

🔑 Key Legal Principles Laid Down:

1. Section 362 CrPC is relaxed in the context of Section 125 CrPC due to the social welfare objective of the provision.

2. Family Courts do not become functus officio after passing final orders in maintenance cases.

3. Section 125 CrPC must be liberally interpreted as a social justice legislation aimed at preventing destitution and ensuring dignity and livelihood for dependent wives, children, and parents.

4. The law must be purposively interpreted in favor of the weaker and vulnerable sections, especially in maintenance-related matters.

---

📚 Case Laws Relied Upon:

• Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor (2020) – Held that Section 362 CrPC does not bar recall in Section 125 matters.

• Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) – Emphasized purposive interpretation for social justice.

• Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2014) – Reinforced the summary and beneficial nature of Section 125 proceedings.

---

🧾 Final Judgment:

• The Allahabad High Court set aside the Family Court’s order dated 02.01.2023.

• Directed the Family Court to reconsider the recall application afresh.

• Clarified that the recall/restoration was maintainable in the interest of justice.

---

📌 Conclusion:

This judgment reaffirms that procedural technicalities cannot override social justice, especially in maintenance cases under Section 125 CrPC. Courts are not functus officio and have the jurisdiction to entertain recall applications to ensure substantive justice to vulnerable parties.