Smt. Babul Nisha vs Mohd. Rafeeq Khan

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4884 of 2024

Applicant :- Smt. Babul Nisha Opposite Party :- Mohd. Rafeeq Khan Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Kumar Dubey,Juned Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gyanendra Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

1. Heard.

¶6

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 16.01.2024 passed in Crl. Revision No. 1249 of 2023.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the applicant was ousted by the respondent, she preferred an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., in which, maintenance was awarded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich vide order dated 09.02.2017 and against the said order, Crl. Revision No. 1249 of 2023 was preferred by the respondent, which was disposed of on 16.01.2024.

¶8

4. The order dated 16.01.2024 passed by this Court in Crl. Revision No. 1249 of 2023 is as under:-

¶9

"1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Pathak, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3.

¶10

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 the revisionist has challenged the validity of the order dated 02.11.2023, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Bahraich, in Case No.660/11/2020: Smt. Babul Nisha and another Vs. Mohd. Rafeeq, under Section 128 Cr.P.C.

¶11

3. The only ground of challenge to the order is that the learned trial court has wrongly proceeded to order recovery of arrears of maintenance payable to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application, whereas the maintenance was payable from the date of the order.

¶12

4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that although the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich had ordered on 09.02.2017 that Rs.1500/- per month be paid to the opposite party no.2 from the date of the order in Criminal Misc. Revision No.348 of 2017 filed against the aforesaid order. This court had ordered the revisionist to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.1 from the date of the application i.e. 01.06.2005. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order.

¶13

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the revisionist cannot pay the amount in one lump sum and he will do so in six equal monthly installments. While paying the arrears the revisionist will continue to pay the monthly amount of maintenance to the opposite parties.

¶14

6. Accordingly, the instant revision is disposed of by directing the revisionist to pay entire arrears of maintenance in six monthly installments and at the same time, he will pay the monthly maintenance to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 by transferring the amount to SB A/C No.35580651609 in the name of opposite party no.1 in State Bank of India, Risiya Branch, Bahraich, Branch Code 2602, IFC Code SBIN0002602."

¶15

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that despite clear direction of this Court in the aforesaid revision, the respondent failed to comply the same, therefore, contempt application was filed and notice was issued. He next submits that the respondent appeared before this Court on 24.03.2025 after issuance of bailable warrant.

¶16

6. The orders dated 21.02.2025 and 24.03.2025 passed in the present case are as under:-

¶17

Order dated 21.02.2025 :

¶18

"1. As per office report dated 20.02.2025, in pursuance of the report dated 15.02.2025 submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, that the notice has been served upon respondent no. 1, through his father, but neither the respondent is present, nor any request has been made on his behalf for the adjournment of the case.

¶19

2. Let bailable warrant be issued against the respondent through the C.J.M, Bahraich for appearance of the respondent in person before this court on the next date of listing.

¶20

3. List this case on 24.03.2025."

¶21

Order dated 24.03.2025 :

¶22

"1. Notice was issued to the respondent vide order dated 10.01.2025, which was served on him through his father. However, when the matter was listed on 21.02.2025, the respondent failed to appear before this Court and bailable warrant was issued against him.

¶23

Today, respondent-Mohd. Rafeeq Khan s/o Gulam Mohammad, r/o Village Shankarpur, Post Shankarpur, P.S. Risiya, Distict Bahraich, Mobile - 7565918052 is present before this Court, who is identified by his counsel, Shri Gyanendra Pathak.

¶24

2. Shri Gyanendra Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while placing application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 21.02.2025, which is taken on record, submits that the respondent is ready to pay the due amount to the applicant. It is also informed that Rs.1,05,000/- has already been given to the applicant on 3rd September, 2024 and thereafter, Rs.7,000/- was paid to her on

¶25

21.03.2025. It is next submitted that the respondent is ready to pay the rest of the amount in easy installments.

¶26

3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the recall application is sufficient. Order dated 21.02.2025 in relation to issuance of bailable warrant is hereby recalled. The recall application, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶27

4. List this case on 21.04.2025.

¶28

5. In the meantime, the respondent shall file affidavit of compliance, failing which, he shall appear before this Court for framing of charges."

¶29

7. On 21.04.2025, the respondent failed to appear before this Court, hence, non bailable warrant was issued against him. The order dated 21.04.2025 is as under:

¶30

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gyanendra Pathak for the respondent.

¶31

The record indicates that in criminal revision No.1249 of 2023, the revisionist (respondent herein) was directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance in six monthly instalments and at the same time he was further directed to pay the monthly maintenance to the petitioner herein by transferring the amount in the saving bank account of the petitioner, detail of which was mentioned in the order dated 16.01.2024. Despite the same the compliance was not made.

¶32

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 24.03.2025 had passed the following order which reads as under:-

¶33

"1. Notice was issued to the respondent vide order dated 10.01.2025, which was served on him through his father. However, when the matter was listed on 21.02.2025, the respondent failed to appear before this Court and bailable warrant was issued against him.

¶34

Today, respondent-Mohd. Rafeeq Khan s/o Gulam Mohammad, r/o Village Shankarpur, Post Shankarpur, P.S. Risiya, Distict Bahraich, Mobile - 7565918052 is present before this Court, who is identified by his counsel, Shri Gyanendra Pathak.

¶35

2. Shri Gyanendra Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while placing application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 21.02.2025, which is taken on record, submits that the respondent is ready to pay the due amount to the applicant. It is also informed that Rs.1,05,000/- has already been given to the applicant on 3rd September, 2024 and thereafter, Rs.7,000/- was paid to her on 21.03.2025. It is next submitted that the respondent is ready to pay the rest of the amount in easy installments.

¶36

3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the recall application is sufficient. Order dated 21.02.2025 in relation to issuance of bailable warrant is hereby recalled. The recall application, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶37

4. List this case on 21.04.2025.

¶38

5. In the meantime, the respondent shall file affidavit of compliance, failing which, he shall appear before this Court for framing of charges. "

¶39

Taking a lenient view, time was further granted to the respondent to comply with the order and looking into the cause shown the bailable warrant was recalled.. In the order dated 24.03.2025, it was clearly indicated that in case if the compliance is not made, the respondent shall appear in person.

¶40

Today again, the counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is not present.

¶41

Let a non-bailable warrant be issued against the respondent to produce him before the Court for non compliance of the order dated 24.03.202.

¶42

List this matter on 5th of May, 2025 showing the name of Shri Gyanendra Pathak in the additional cause list as counsel for the respondent."

¶43

8. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sub Inspector, Police Station- Risiya, District- Bahraich is present today.

¶44

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav has placed written instructions dated 19.05.2025, which are taken on record.

¶45

Mr. Sanjay has informed that efforts have already been made to arrest the respondent, but he is not traceable. He has also informed that he has interacted with family members of the respondent, but they are also unable to provide the location of the respondent, and the police is still trying to arrest the respondent.

¶46

9. List this case on 07.07.2025.

¶47

10. By the next date, Superintendent of Police, Bahraich is directed to file his personal affidavit in relation to the action taken by the police in compliance of earlier order dated 05.05.2025.

¶48

11. Senior Registrar of this Court is also directed to communicate this order to Superintendent of Police, Bahraich for necessary compliance.

¶49

Order Date :- 20.5.2025

¶50

Arpan

¶51

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

Smt. Babul Nisha v. Mohd. Rafeeq Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Babul Nisha v. Mohd. Rafeeq Khan

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

Shiv Saran Tiwari Vs Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Prin. Secy. Urban Development Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others

Vivek Mani Vs Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, D.M., Shrawasti

Babulal Vs Nisha Anant I.a.S., Distt. Magistrate, Amethi

Maheshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Gramya Vikas Lko. 5 Others

Shalini Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Animal Husbandary Lko. and 5 Others

Surendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another