Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay rejected without issuing notice to opposite party no.2; the revisionist's right to seek modification of the ex-parte interim order dated 23.11.2023 before the trial court is preserved

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court against the order dated 23.11.2023 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act +1 more

Court's answer

The order dated 23.11.2023 is merely an interim order; the revisionist may appear before the Family Court and seek modification after placing complete facts and evidence and filing his affidavit of assets and liabilities in light of the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of the date of knowledge of the impugned order, the revisionist has not given sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the revision; the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is rejected without issuing notice to opposite party no.2

Key takeaways

The rejection of the condonation application will not affect the right of the revisionist to appear before the trial court and seek modification of the ex-parte interim order dated 23.11.2023 in accordance with lawratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — revision under S.19(4) of the Family Court against ex-parte interim maintenance order dated 23.11.2023 (S.125 Cr.P.C., Case No. 609/2023, Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow) directing payment of Rs.6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 — affidavit did not disclose the date of acquiring knowledge of the order — no sufficient explanation for the delay — application under S.5 of Limitation Act rejected without notice to opposite party no.2 — interim order open to modification before the Family Court on filing of affidavit of assets and liabilities per Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 — rejection does not affect the right to seek modification of the interim order before the trial court.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42440

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 208 of 2024

Revisionist :- Rohit Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Anumesh Mishra,Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

Heard Sri Anumesh Mishra, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mukesh Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State.

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court against an order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Lucknow, in Case No. 609/2023, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the opposite party no. 2. The matter was fixed for 22.01.2024 for filing written statement and for recording evidence of the parties on 25.01.2024

In the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and immediately upon gaining knowledge of the order, the revisionist took steps for challenging the order but the date of acquiring knowledge of the order has not been disclosed in the affidavit.

In absence of the date of knowledge of the impugned order, the revisionist has not given sufficient explanation for delay in

filing the revision.

Moreover, the order dated 23.11.2023 is merely an interim order and it is open for the revisionist to appear before the Family Court and seek modification of the order after placing the complete facts and evidence in support thereof and after filing his affidavit of assets and liabilities in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha; (2021) 2 SCC 324.

Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision is rejected without issuing notice to opposite party no.2.

The rejection of this application will not affect the right of the revisionist to appear before the trial court and seek modification of the ex-parte interim order dated 23.11.2023 in accordance with law.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

Order Date :- 4.6.2024 Preeti.

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench