Kuldeep Gupta Alias Kanhaiya vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35221

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1074 of 2025

Revisionist :- Kuldeep Gupta Alias Kanhaiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Maintenance Case No.569 of 2021, (Kuldeep Gupta @ Kanhaiya Vs. Chhaya Devi and another) under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Fatehpur.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶8

None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that applicant Smt. Chhaya Devi and Km. Shishti (minor daughter) had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court Fatehpur claiming themselves as wife and daughter of opposite party. On 02.05.2017 wherein they have claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the applicants, the said case was decided by learned court below vide judgment and order dated 06.09.2021, whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicants from the date of filing of application dated 02.05.2017. Revisionist had made appearance in that maintenance case and had filed his written statement, but same was not taken into consideration by the learned court below on the ground that it did not bear signature of the opposite party, and therefore it was not maintainable.

¶10

However, he had given opportunity of cross-examination of applicant No.1, the opposite party was not granted opportunity to lead evidence in support of its stand taken before the court below. He fell ill on 24.03.2021 due to out break of COVID-19 Pandemic and he could not appear before the court and his opportunity of evidence was closed by the court below. Respondent No.2 operates

¶11

an ice-cream factory and she also runs a shop, but this fact could not be taken into consideration by the court below as his opportunity to lead evidence before the court in support of his stand was closed.

¶12

He next submitted that he had filed an application for restoration and setting aside impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2021 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. which was allowed by learned court below on payment of Rs.1 lakh as cost, which is an exorbitant amount and revisionist is not able to pay the same, therefore, the only prayer is being made at this stage that the cost imposed on order dated 30.01.2025 may kindly be reduced substantially, so that revisionist will pay the same to the respondents and he may be afforded opportunity of hearing in Maintenance Case No.147 of 2017 for restoration to its original number.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that from perusal of impugned order it appears that revisionist deliberately failed to appear before the court below after filing his written statement which was not taken on record for reasons shown in the impugned order and even then, the restoration application was allowed subject to payment of cost, which cannot be said to be exorbitant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

I find no need to keep the present revision pending and same is liable to be decided as the prayer has been made only with regard to cost imposed in the impugned order. The merits of the order are not assailed by the revisionist. Therefore, I think it proper to decide the criminal revision finally at this stage.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the cost imposed in the impugned judgment and order is exorbitant, it is stated on behalf of the revisionist that he runs a tea shop in the village.

¶16

Consequently the cost imposed in the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 is reduced from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.50,000/- which will be payable by the revisionist to respondent No.2 within a month, or in case of failure same be deposited to the court below, in any manner, this order will not given effect after lapse on one month from today, if it is not complied with within the stipulated period. The impugned order stands modified to the extent as directed above. The revisionist is directed to appear before the court below for necessary action.

¶17

The revision is partly allowed , accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Ashish/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep Gupta Alias Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Gupta Alias Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Aman Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishi Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Om Prakash @ Lala vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Badkanni @ Aneeta and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Manas Mehrotra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Avtar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others