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

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mohd. Waqar Khan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for Opposite No.2.

¶12

The captioned criminal revision has been filed inter alia praying therein for the following reliefs:-

¶13

"summon the record of the case and after hearing the parties allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Crl. Misc. Case No. 29/2023, U/s- 126 Cr.P.C., titled as Mohd. Salim vs. Smt. Rizwana Bano in an arbitrary manner, contained as Annexure No. 1, to this revision."

¶14

It transpires from the record of this criminal revision that Opposite Party No. 2 had filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which had been allowed vide an ex parte order dated 17.03.2020, whereby direction had been issued for payment of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to Opposite Party No. 2 w.e.f. 23.09.2017. The revisionist had filed an application for recall of the aforesaid ex parte order dated 17.03.2020 and the said application had been allowed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya vide order dated 04.01.2025, wherein it had been provided that if the revisionist deposits Rs. 50,000/- then the ex parte order dated 17.03.2020 shall stand recalled with a further rider that if the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is not deposited then the order dated 17.03.2020

¶15

CRLR No. 1097 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

shall remain as it is and the process of recovery shall be initiated.

¶18

The revisionist pursuant to order dated 04.01.2025 could not deposit Rs. 50,000/- as he could not make arrangement of the necessary funds, therefore, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya had passed an order on 23.06.2025, wherein it had been provided that since revisionist could not deposit Rs. 50,000/- as directed vide order dated 04.01.2025, therefore, the ex parte order dated 17.03.2020 stands intact and further direction had been issued to proceed for recovery of amount in terms of the order dated 17.03.2020.

¶19

In the aforesaid compelling circumstances, the revisionist has filed the instant criminal revision before this Court. On the first date of hearing, the revisionist expressed his willingness to pay Rs. 50,000/- to Opposite Party No. 2 and requested that on such payment, this Court may set aside the ex parte order dated 17.03.2020 and may direct the learned Additional Principal, Family Court, Ayodhya to hear the matter filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on merits.

¶20

On the aforesaid willingness expressed by the revisionist, this Court passed an order on 08.10.2025 in following terms:-

¶21

"1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶22

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist, at the very outset, has submitted that the revisionist is ready to pay Rs.50,000/- in terms of the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Case No.29 of 2023.

¶23

3. In view of the aforesaid statement, let notice be issued to opposite party no.2, returnable within two weeks.

¶24

4. List this matter on 28.10.2025, as fresh.

¶25

5. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that no coercive measures shall be adopted against the revisionist.

¶26

6. It is also made clear that on the next date, this interim order shall be extended only after hearing the parties' counsels."

¶27

CRLR No. 1097 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

In compliance of this court's order dated 08.10.2025 and other orders passed by this court, the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2, both are present before this Court in person.

¶30

The revisionist has placed before this Court a Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- issued in favour of Opposite Party No. 2, which has been handed over to Opposite Party No. 2, who is present before this Court in person.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 as well as the revisionist and Opposite Party No.2, who are present before this Court in person have consented that this Court may set aside the ex parte order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Case No. 341 of 2017, Smt. Rizwana Bano vs. Mohd. Salim and may remand the matter to the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya to decide the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on merits, after hearing all the concerned parties.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya had passed an order on 04.01.2025, whereby ex parte order dated 17.03.2025 had been set aside subject to the payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the revisionist but since he could not deposit the said amount, the order dated 04.01.2025 had last it's sanctity and the ex parte order dated 17.03.2020 had become operative.

¶33

Since the revisionist had paid Rs. 50,000/- to Opposite Party No. 2, therefore, Opposite Party No. 2 and all the parties before this Court have agreed that the ex parte order dated 17.03.2020 and other consequential orders may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya for deciding the case filed by Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on its own merit, after hearing all the concerned parties.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid consensus arrived at in between the parties, this criminal revision is allowed, the orders dated 17.03.2020 and 23.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya are hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya to hear and decide the

¶35

CRLR No. 1097 of 2025

¶36

4

¶37

case filed by Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Smt. Rizwana Bano, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing Case No. 341 of 2017 (Rizwana Bano versus Mohd Samil) on merits, after hearing all the concerned parties.

¶38

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶39

November 4, 2025 Satish

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Salim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Salim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

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

Juvenile Offender S Thru. His Natural Guardian / Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Jagdamba Prasad Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gopal Agrawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Mittal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Kumar vs U.P. Gramin Bank (Erstwhile Aryavart Bank ) Lko Thru. Chairman and 3 Others