In a criminal revision under Family Courts Act, this single bench dismissed the revisionist's challenge to a Family Court order imposing Rs 50000 costs for allowing an application to set aside an ex-parte maintenance judgment due to eight years of inconsistent absence.
The revision challenging the order dated 20.12.2023 was dismissed.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5775
Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 54 of 2024
Revisionist :- Veer Prakash Opposite Party :- Smt. Shilpi Verma Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
absence of the revisionist. The revisionist's application for setting aside the order to proceed ex-parte was allowed by means of an order dated 03.01.2018, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as cost and the matter was fixed for recording evidence of the revisionist on 05.02.2018. The revisionist again absented himself and on 06.09.2018, the proceedings were again ordered to proceed ex-parte. The revisionist's application for setting the order dated 06.09.2018 was allowed subject to payment of Rs 1,000/- as cost and the case was fixed for crossexamination but the revisionist again absented himself. The respondent's evidence was recorded on 05.04.2022 and on 06.04.2022, the court passed the judgment. It is also recorded in the impugned order that the revisionist had appeared on 23.12.2021 and had sought adjournment of the case as he wanted to make efforts for conciliation but thereafter again he did not appear.
Order Date :- 19.1.2024 Raj
Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cost imposed by the Family Court of Rs 50000/- for allowing an application under Section 126(2) CrPC is excessive and arbitrary.
Whether the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 suffers from illegality or infirmity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajnesh vs. NehaReferred¶9
Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 32 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
