Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

1. Heard.

¶8

Instant revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Sitapur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.1976 of 2019 in re: Sumaiya vs. Nafis, whereby the learned court has rejected the application for adjournment and has fixed the matter for ex-parte evidence.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the respondents herein, who are the wife and two minor children of the revisionist, praying for grant of maintenance. Initially, on account of COVID and thereafter for the reasons best known to the revisionist he could not file the written statement. Incidentally, although a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the revisionist in Court that the revisionist did not receive summons of the said case on account of which the revisionist could not file the written statement but no averment has been made in the revision with regard to that.

¶10

Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been pending since last five years before learned family court and the revisionist failed to file any written statement and thereafter when the matter was listed on 18.07.2024 he again requested for an adjournment which has been turned down by the learned court and the matter has been directed to be fixed for ex-parte evidence.

¶11

As no reasons emerge from perusal of the revision as to why the written statement was not filed for a period of almost five years from the date of filing of the said application by the revisionist and even after learned counsel for the revisionist having been indicated that the order could be set-aside provided some exemplary cost is paid by him in order to compensate the

¶12

private respondents as they are still to get either any interim maintenance or otherwise from the revisionist and being solely dependent on the earnings of the revisionist only a petty amount has been indicated which the revisionist would be willing to pay.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid, no reasonable ground is found to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 A. Katiyar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nafis v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

What the court decided

Nafis v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Hamanshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Bhagwan Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ramji vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another