Dismissed

Veer Prakash v. Smt. Shilpi Verma

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2024CRLR/54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order of the Family Court, Raebareli. The Family Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 to set aside an ex-parte order enforcing maintenance. The High Court found no illegality as the respondent highlighted the revisionist's repeated absences and failure to file an affidavit of assets.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; order dated 20.12.2023 upholding the Rs. 50,000 cost remains in force.

Veer Prakash vs Smt. Shilpi Verma — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5775

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 54 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Veer Prakash Opposite Party :- Smt. Shilpi Verma Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, the revisionist had challenged the validity of an order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the I^st Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Raebareli whereby an application under Section 126(2) CrPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 allowing the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the respondent/wife of the revisionist, has been allowed subject to payment of Rs.50000/- as cost within a period of one month.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the cost imposed by the family court is excessive and it should be reduced.

¶9

A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 indicates that the respondent had objected to the application under Section 126(2) CrPC by submitting that the applicant has delayed the disposal of proceedings for eight years in a planned way and he has not paid any amount as maintenance to his wife during this period. The proceedings were ordered to be proceed ex-parte repeatedly and order to proceed ex-parte was set aside repeatedly at the instance of the revisionist. The revisionist did not file his affidavit of assets and liabilities on the format laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 32.

¶10

The court had recorded that the respondent had filed the application under Section 126 CrPC on 21.10.2015. The case was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 09.05.2017 because of

¶11

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.

¶12

The order dated 06.04.2022 does not state that it was passed ex-parte and it makes a mention of the objections filed by the revisionist, in support of which no evidence was adduced by him.

¶13

In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 20.12.2023 suffers from no illegality or infirmity and in any case, it does not defeat the ends of justice.

¶14

The revision lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 19.1.2024 Raj

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Veer Prakash v. Smt. Shilpi Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Prakash v. Smt. Shilpi Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lalta Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Another

Dasarath and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Diwakar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Veer Prakash Vs Smt. Shilpi Verma

Revisionist Is Minor 'R' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Adhar and Othhers Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another