This revision dismisseded, upholding the lower court's order imposing Rs. 20,000/- cost on the revisionist for failing to pay maintenance and evade service, despite challenges on grounds of poverty and lack of awareness of proceedings. The interim relief was vacated.
Revision dismissed; impugned order dated 31.05.2019 upheld; interim relief vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 820 of 2019
Revisionist :- Mohd. Israr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Pal Singh,Girish Kumar Kannojia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Mishra,Priyanka Shahi
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
None appeared on behalf of opposite parties.
Learned counsel for the revisionist and State are present and perused the material placed on record.
Present revision has been filed by the revisionist under section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the principal judge family Shrawasti in case no. 14/12/2018(Modh. Israr vs. Smt. Shabana Begum and other ) upon application under section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. thereby allowing the application on the cost and interim relief of Rs. 20,000/- and setting aside the ex-parte order dated 05.05.2016 passed in Case No. 128/11/2015 (Smt. Shabana Begum and Others Vs Mohd. Israr) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shrawasti.
From perusal of the revision it transpires that on 25.06.2015 the opposite party no. 2 has filed application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before Principal Judge Family Court Shrawasti for maintenance which got registered as case no. 128/11/2015 (Smt. Shabana Begum and others vs. Mohd. Israr).
About the aforesaid proceeding, the revisionist was not aware and he came to know when recovery certificate was issued by the court for recovery of awarded amount. The revisionist
immediately thereafter filed an application under section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 05.05.2016.
On the application of the revisionist under section 126(2) Cr.P.C., notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2, who filed objection before the court.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned trial court passed the impugned order dated 31.05.2019 whereby, imposing cost and interim relief to the tune of Rs.20,000/- upon revisionist while setting aside the ex-parte order dated 05.05.2016.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that imposing the cost of Rs.20,000/- is unjust and improper, moreover it is highly excessive as he is a poor labour and he is unable to pay Rs.20,000/-.
From perusal of the material placed on record, it transpires that the revisionist has not paid the amount as directed by the trial court to her wife and as such while setting aside the ex-parte order, has imposed cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The ex-parte judgment was passed after serving of notice to the revisionist by publication. The revisionist did not appear appear in court concerned, Bailable Warrant was issued against him. It appears that the revisionist is devoiding the order of the Court.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.
Interim order if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 1.8.2023 Mayank
Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow revision challenging imposition of costs and interim relief upon setting aside a default decree in maintenance proceedings.
Whether to exercise discretion to waive costs imposed on a revisionist who failed to pay maintenance and evade service of notice.
Whether to interfere with the trial court's order imposing Rs. 20,000/- cost and vacating interim relief on appeal against an ex-parte judgment.
Renu Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
