Dismissed¶21

Balram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024/142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 CrPC maintenance to wife and minor daughter; criminal revision dismissed; condonation of delay under Section 5 Indian Limitation Act; Family Court Gonda; objection of wife living in adultery not accepted; husband failed to cross-examine or produce evidence despite last opportunity; summary proceeding pending since 2014; income imputed Rs.20,000/- per month on minimum wages; maintenance Rs.4000/- and Rs.2000/- per month; liberty under section 127 CrPC on changed circumstances; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, 2024.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the revision condoned; revision dismissed as devoid of merit; liberty reserved to the revisionist to move an appropriate application before the Family Court on changed circumstances (section 127 CrPC), to be decided on its own merit expeditiously. ¶21

Balram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the criminal revision should be condoned under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Delay in filing the revision is condoned: cause shown in the supporting affidavit is sufficient; the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the revision is taken on merit.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The proceeding under section 125 CrPC is summary in nature; because of the revisionist's conduct it remained pending since 2014 and the trial prolonged disproportionately for almost a decade.

¶19

Key takeaways

On due consideration of the submissions, the record and the impugned judgment, no good ground is found to interfere with the impugned judgment; the revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.ratio¶21
On changed circumstances, the revisionist is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Family Court (under section 127 CrPC), which, if filed, shall be decided on its own merit, expeditiously, without being influenced by any findings or observations of this Court.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. — Criminal Revision Defective No. 142 of 2024, Balram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (order dated 19.4.2024). Revision against the judgment/orders dated 24.8.2021 and 3.11.2023 of the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Gonda in Criminal Case No.581 of 2014 / Crl. Case No.18 of 2023 (Smt. Suman and another v. Balram), whereby maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the wife (respondent No.2) and Rs.2000/- per month to the daughter (respondent No.3) was awarded under section 125 CrPC. Delay in filing the revision was condoned under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. Despite the revisionist's objection alleging that respondent No.2 was living in adultery, the five framed issues were all decided against him: respondent No.2 was held to be the legally wedded wife and respondent No.3 his daughter; the respondents were unable to maintain themselves; respondent No.2 was residing away due to cruelty; and the revisionist was held to have adequate means, his income being computed at Rs.20,000/- per month on the basis of minimum wages. The revisionist had neither cross-examined respondent No.2 nor led any evidence despite several opportunities including a last opportunity, in a summary proceeding pending since 2014. Finding no good ground to interfere, the Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merit, while reserving liberty to the revisionist to approach the Family Court on changed circumstances under section 127 CrPC, such application to be decided on its own merit, expeditiously and uninfluenced by this Court's findings or observations.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30845

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 142 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Balram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra,Rituraj Mishra,Shesh Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this criminal revision filed against the judgment and orders dated 24.8.2021 and 3.11.2023 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, district Gonda in Criminal Case No.581 of 2014 and Crl. Case No.18 of 2023 Smt. Suman and another versus Balram and perused the record.

¶7

2. Notice to private respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with.

¶8

3. Present revision has been filed with delay and as such an application No.2 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been filed along with an affidavit.

¶9

4. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of this revision seems to be sufficient. The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the revision is taken on merit.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that vide the impugned judgment dated 24.8.2021, maintenance has been awarded to respondents 2 and 3 in a proceeding under section 125 CrPC to the tune of Rs.4000/- and Rs.2000/- per month respectively. It is submitted that the objections filed by the revisionist have not been considered by the Family Judge. The revisionist has no source of income. The revisionist's counsel has tried to show evidence at this stage.

¶11

6. A perusal of the judgment impugned shows that it is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and respondent No.3 is his daughter. An allegation while filing objection has been levelled upon respondent No.2 that she is living in adultery. A perusal of the impugned judgment further shows that respondent No.2 in support of her contention has given evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. She has also filed documentary evidence. The revisionist has also filed affidavit of D.W.1 Shri Balram, D.W.2 Shri Ram Shabd and D.W.3 Rakesh Kumar Verma, however, he has not cross-

¶12

examined respondent No.2 despite being given opportunities. It further shows that over the years, several opportunities and even last opportunity was given to the revisionist for giving evidence, still the revisionist chose not to give any evidence and has not cooperated in disposal of the application under section 125 CrPC which is summary proceeding. Accordingly, five issues were framed.

¶13

Issue No.1 was decided in favour of respondents 2 and 3 that respondent No.2 is a legally wedded wife of the revisionist and respondent No.3 is his daughter.

¶14

Likewise, issued No.2 was also decided that respondents 2 and 3 are unable to maintain themselves as no evidence to the contrary has been given by the revisionist before the trial Court.

¶15

Issue No.3 has also been proved by respondent No.2 by evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and no evidence has been given by the revisionist before the trial court and therefore, issue No.3 that due to cruelty committed upon respondent No.2, she is residing away from the revisionist has been decided in favour of private respondents.

¶16

As regards issue No.4, it too has been decided in favour of private respondents. Issue No.4 was whether the revisionist is a person of having adequate resource and has deliberately overlooked maintenance of the private respondents.

¶17

The trial court has found that respondent No.2 has supported her contention by way of oral evidence, however, no documentary evidence has been given by her and in such circumstances, on the basis of minimum wages, income of the revisionist has been calculated to Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶18

It is also admitted that no maintenance amount has been given by the revisionist to his wife and minor child. Nothing was found on record by the trial court in this regard and ultimately, the trial court after finding that respondent 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and respondent No.3 is his daughter, due to cruelty committed upon them, respondent No.2 is residing away from the revisionist. She has no source of income and she is destitute and is incapable of maintaining herself and her child whereas the revisionist was found to be a resourceful person and he has not paid any maintenance amount.

¶19

Besides, the proceeding under section 125 CrPC is summary in nature. In the case in hand, it appears that because of the conduct of the revisionist, the proceeding under section 125 CrPC pending since 2014 could not be concluded and the trial

¶20

has prolonged disproportionately for almost a decade.

¶21

7. On due consideration to the submission advanced, perusal of the record as well as the judgment impugned, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. The revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶22

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that under change circumstance, the revisionist may be granted liberty to move an application under section 127 CrPC.

¶23

In this context, it is provided that in case there are changed circumstances, the revisionist is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Family Court which, if filed, shall be decided on its own merit, expeditiously, without being influenced by any of the findings or observations made by this court.

¶24

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 kkb/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Balram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Pavnesh Kumar Yadav @ Chintu vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Ankit Das @ Govind vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Balram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Swami Nath Patwa vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others