Can Courts Recall Costs Imposed for Adjournment in Section 125 CrPC Proceedings?

In family law matters, maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) play a crucial role in providing financial support to wives, children, and parents who cannot maintain themselves. A common issue arises when courts impose costs for adjournments to discourage delays. But what if those costs were imposed unfairly? Can the same court that levied them recall or set aside such an order?

This question—In a proceeding U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. the order for cost imposed against adjournment can be recalled by the same court—is pivotal for litigants navigating these quasi-civil proceedings. Generally, courts possess inherent powers to revisit such orders, ensuring justice isn't prejudiced by procedural missteps. This post delves into the legal framework, key judgments, and practical considerations.

Nature of Section 125 CrPC Proceedings

Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are designed for speedy relief and are inherently civil or quasi-civil in nature, not strict criminal trials. Sahabi Khatoon VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1669Raju Oraon S/o Jago Oraon VS Ghurni Orain D/O Jaisingh Bharat - 2020 Supreme(Jhk) 551. As noted, The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not insisted upon... needless to say that the status of fatherhood can not be decided in a summary proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Raju Oraon S/o Jago Oraon VS Ghurni Orain D/O Jaisingh Bharat - 2020 Supreme(Jhk) 551

Orders passed here, including those for costs on adjournments, are judicial orders. This characterization opens the door to flexible judicial remedies, distinguishing them from final criminal judgments barred by Section 362 CrPC. Sahabi Khatoon VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1669

Court's Inherent Power to Recall or Review Orders

Yes, the court typically has the inherent power to recall or set aside an order for costs imposed for adjournment, even without explicit statutory permission. This stems from the quasi-civil essence of these proceedings, allowing courts to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. Sahabi Khatoon VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1669Sufian Uddin VS Shifa Begum - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 520

The Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) clarified that the bar of Section 362 Cr.P.C., which bars review or alteration of final judgments, does not apply to proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., because such proceedings are of a civil nature and the court's jurisdiction to modify or recall orders exists. Sahabi Khatoon VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1669

Similarly, the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) bolsters this power, particularly for interlocutory orders like adjournment costs. Sufian Uddin VS Shifa Begum - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 520

Key Case Laws Supporting Recall

Several judgments affirm this jurisdiction:

• Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kapoor (supra): The power to cancel or vary orders under Sections 125 and 127 CrPC is implicit, permitting ongoing jurisdiction. Sahabi Khatoon VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1669
• Md. Yusuf T. Attarwala v. Jumana Yusuf T. Attarwala (1988): Family Courts can recall and restore proceedings under Section 125 CrPC post-dismissal for default, underscoring the civil nature. Sachindra Kumar Samal VS Madhusmita Samal @ Swain - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 395
• Delhi High Court rulings: Orders for maintenance costs, including adjournments, may be recalled if justified, as they aren't strictly criminal. Sufian Uddin VS Shifa Begum - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 520

Insights from Additional Judgments

Other cases illustrate practical application:

• In one instance, an order dated 22.9.2021 was recalled, and while costs of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 125 CrPC were imposed, it highlights courts' discretion in balancing recall with accountability. VIVEK KUMAR TYAGI vs State of U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
• A Family Court recalled an ex-parte order dated 03.06.2019 on 29.06.2019 in interim maintenance proceedings, allowing merits-based decisions. MOHIT RAWAT Vs SHEFALI CHAUHAN RAWAT
• Another ruling saw a dated 17.12.2021 order recalled and restored after costs for adjournment to Opposite Party No.2, noting the case's pendency since 2018. SMT SARITA vs State of U.P. AND ANOTHER
• Courts have recalled ex-parte orders but imposed costs (e.g., Rs. 5,000/-), as in a 2010 case under Section 125 CrPC. DALESHWAR PRASAD VERMA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND And ANR
• In restoration applications, costs were directed alongside recall, emphasizing judicious exercise. SATISH AGRAWAL vs SUDHA AGARWALMAHESH S/O MALLAPPA TALAWAR vs THE STATE

These examples show recall is common but often paired with costs to deter delays, aligning with directives like heavy cost shall be imposed for adjournments. Kamal Chandra Mishra VS Usha Verma - 2016 Supreme(All) 3358Shanker Lal VS Gayatri Devi - 2016 Supreme(All) 3329

Exceptions and Limitations

While broad, this power isn't absolute:- It applies mainly to civil/quasi-civil contexts, not final criminal orders. Sufian Uddin VS Shifa Begum - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 520- Recall requires valid grounds like abuse of process, inadvertent error, or miscarriage of justice; mere dissatisfaction isn't enough.- Discretion must be judicious, as seen in cases warning against flimsy adjournments with heavy costs under Order XVII CPC. Krishna Das Bhowmick VS Ajoy Kumar Dutta

In maintenance claims, even without strict proof (e.g., marriage rites), relief may be granted liberally, but procedural orders remain reviewable. Salt. Jaishree w/o. Premnath Gavandar VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 1642

Practical Recommendations for Litigants

• Approach promptly: File applications to recall with strong grounds to avoid laches.
• Document justification: Show how the cost order prejudices justice or was erroneous.
• Expect costs: Courts may impose or adjust costs upon recall, as in multiple High Court orders. VIVEK KUMAR TYAGI vs State of U.P. AND 3 OTHERSSMT SARITA vs State of U.P. AND ANOTHER
• Seek expeditious disposal: Highlight case pendency to invoke summary nature. MOHIT RAWAT Vs SHEFALI CHAUHAN RAWAT

Courts are encouraged to use inherent powers judiciously to ensure fair administration. Sahabi Khatoon VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1669

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

In summary, the same court may generally recall an order for costs imposed for adjournment in Section 125 CrPC proceedings, leveraging its inherent powers in these quasi-civil matters. Supported by Supreme Court and High Court precedents, this flexibility prevents procedural rigidity from undermining justice. Sahabi Khatoon VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1669Sachindra Kumar Samal VS Madhusmita Samal @ Swain - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 395Sufian Uddin VS Shifa Begum - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 520

Key Takeaways:- Proceedings are quasi-civil, allowing review unlike pure criminal cases.- Recall is possible on merits, often with adjusted costs.- Act swiftly with valid grounds.

This post provides general information based on judicial trends and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

References:- Sahabi Khatoon VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1669: Supreme Court on inherent powers in Section 125.- Sachindra Kumar Samal VS Madhusmita Samal @ Swain - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 395: Recall in family courts.- Sufian Uddin VS Shifa Begum - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 520: Costs and actus curiae principle.- Additional sources as cited inline.