Chetan Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140365

Court No. - 84

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1300 of 2025

Revisionist :- Chetan Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gyanendra Prasad Mahant,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Misc. Case No. 28 of 2024 (Chetan Pratap Singh Vs. Smt. Jyoti Singh and another) under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. as well as judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case NO. 297 of 2020 (Smt. Jyoti Singh and another Vs. Chetan Pratap Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor daughter of the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 is living apart from him without any sufficient cause and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed ex-parte by the learned trial court vide order dated 12.12.2023. No notice was served on him that was the reason he could not participate in proceeding of the case before the learned trial court. Further submitted that he moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. with an application under Section 5 Limitation Act which was allowed for cost of Rs. 20,000/- but application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned trial court on the ground that registered notice was deemed to be served on the revisionist. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that no opportunity of hearing was given to the revisionist but only on the basis of assumption, service of notice was deemed to be sufficient and case was proceeded ex-parte, therefore, request to set aside the ex-parte order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision and direct the learned trial court to decide the case on merit after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist also.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, from the year 2020 the opposite

¶11

party no. 2 is living apart from him with minor child due to his neglect and he has not given any single penny for maintenance to the wife and the minor child. Further submitted that on the same address, the registered notice was served on the revisionist but he did not turn up to participate in the proceeding that was the reason the case was proceeded ex-parte and amount of maintenance was fixed Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 4000/- per month in favour of minor child on 12.12.2023 and for depriving the opposite party no. 2, of the maintenance an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was filed which was rejected by learned trial court while considering his conduct and service of notice. There is no any illegality in the order passed by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court date 12.12.2023 and order on application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. dated 04.02.2025, it appears that the registered notice was sent on the address of the revisionist and on assumption of service of notice, the case was proceeded ex-parte and final order was passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisionist could not get an opportunity of hearing before the learned trial court. The application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground of assumption of service of notice deemed to be sufficient. In the interest of justice the opportunity of hearing must also be given to the revisionist before the learned trial court and for his inadvertence and absence, reasonable cost may be imposed and also some amount as maintenance be directed to be given to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶13

In considered opinion of this Court the orders dated 12.12.2023 and 04.02.2025 are hereby set aside with condition, the revisionist makes payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 within a period of 45 days from today and thereafter he will continue to pay Rs. 6000/- per month as interim maintenance for maintenance of wife and minor child. In case, he fails to comply this order, the learned trial court will be at liberty to proceed further for realization of amount of maintenance in compliance of order dated 12.12.2023. The amount so paid by the revisionist to the opposite parties shall be adjusted in the amount of final maintenance.

¶14

Accordingly, the present revision is allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Anurag Singh

¶16

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

Chetan Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Pratap Singh 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

Abhishek Sharma vs State of Up and Another

Ziya Firdaus vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Patel vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gaurav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others