Allowed

Mahraj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2018CRLR/1843/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held the revision allowing the applicant an opportunity to be heard on an ex-parte family court maintenance order. The lower order was set aside, subject to costs, and proceedings directed to conclude expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The maintenance order dated 31.03.2018 and 11.04.2014 set aside; applicant allowed to file objection and lead evidence upon depositing Rs. 50,000/- costs within one month. Proceedings to conclude with

Mahraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1843 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Mahraj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhay Raj Singh,Satyendra Bhushan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 31.03.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 350 of 2016 (Mahraj Singh Vs. Smt. Kamlesh), under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., arising out of judgment and order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Misc. Case No. 1446 of 2013 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Mahraj Singh) and direct the learned Family Court to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a fresh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant had filed appearance in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. , he could not file his objections therein and could not appear in those proceedings in view of the fact that he had taken ill and was under going treatment for the same. In the meanwhile, the learned Court below vide its ex-parte order dated 11.04.2014 awarded maintenance allowance to the opposite party no. 2 @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and @ Rs. 1,000/per month each to her two children from the date of that order.

¶8

It is then submitted that the applicant filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. with a delay condonation application on 08.04.2016. These applications have been rejected as time barred. On merits, it has been submitted that the applicant is about 62 years of age married to one Munni Devi who is about 60 years of age. He has children and grand children. It is thus submitted that the allegation made by the opposite party no. 2 was wholly misconceived and based on false allegation of marriage.

¶9

In any case, it is submitted that in view of the first marriage of the applicant the claim made by the opposite party no. 2 would have to be rejected. As to the claim made on behalf of the two children of the opposite party no. 2, it is submitted that as on date, there is no evidence to establish their paternity.

¶10

In view of the objections being raised on merits, it does appear that the applicant may be given one opportunity to be heard before the learned Court below. However, the negligent conduct of the applicant in not appearing in the proceedings for more than two years, during which time, the proceedings came to be decided ex-parte, also cannot be over looked.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances noted above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present revision pending any further.

¶12

Leaving it open to the opposite party no. 2 to file recall of this order, if so advised, the present revision is allowed . The order dated 31.03.2018 and 11.04.2014 are hereby set aside, subject to the applicant depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards cost to the opposite party no. 2 within a period of one month from today before the learned Court below.

¶13

Upon such cost being paid by the applicant, the learned Court below shall allow the applicant to file his objection and a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence, if any. Also, the learned Court below shall ensure that the proceedings are concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of compliance being made by the applicant, without allowing for undue or long adjournment to either of the parties.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.5.2018 A. Singh

Mahraj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahraj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishnu Gopal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Wasir Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhura Alias Imaran Vs State of U.P. and Anr.