Siddharth Vatham vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

Siddharth Vatham vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conditional opportunity to seek recall: upon filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. within fifteen days (with certified copy of this order), the court below is to decide it on merits without objection to delay, by reasoned and speaking order, preferably within one month; meanwhile the revisionist is directed to continue paying monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- to opposite party no. 3 till the final outcome of the Section 126(2) proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision against the ex-parte judgment passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the revisionist has not first availed the statutory recall remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., as contended by the learned A.G.A.

Ratio / Principle

This criminal revision is disposed of on the ground of availability of statutory remedy (recall of the ex-parte judgment under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.) rather than being adjudicated on its merits.

Key takeaways

If the revisionist files an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the ex-parte judgment dated 09-02-2024 before the court below within fifteen days, together with certified copy of this order and supporting documents, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law on merits, without raising any objection as to delay, by means of a reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably within a period of one month, without unnecessary adjournments, if there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶6
It is clarified that the revisionist shall continue to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 towards monthly maintenance allowance till the final outcome of the proceedings under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRLR No. 2474 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Madan Pal Singh, J., dated December 10, 2025) by Siddharth Vatham under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 09.02.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj in Maintenance Case No. 32/12 (Smt. Nisha Kashyap vs. Siddharth Vatham) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which had directed payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3. On the learned A.G.A.'s preliminary objection that the revisionist had bypassed the statutory recall remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., the Court disposed of the revision on the ground of availability of statutory remedy; it provided that a recall application filed within fifteen days with certified copy of the order shall be considered and decided on merits without objection to delay, by reasoned speaking order after hearing both sides, preferably within one month; and clarified that the monthly maintenance payments shall continue till the final outcome of the Section 126(2) proceedings.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2474 of 2024

Siddharth Vatham

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Mukul Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Court No. - 89

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Mukul Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj, in Maintenance Case No. 32/12 (Smt. Nisha Kashyap vs. Siddharth Vatham), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court, while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ex parte, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 from the date of the application.

On the matter being taken up, learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present criminal revision by contending that the impugned judgment and order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.is an ex-parte judgment and the revisionist, without availing his statutory remedy provided under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the said ex-parte judgment, has approached this revisional Court directly for setting aside the said judgment. He, therefore, submit that the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

Under such circumstances, this criminal revision is disposed of on the ground of availability of statutory remedy.

However, it is provided that in case, the revisionist files an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the ex-parte judgment dated 09-02-2024 before the court below within fifteen days from today along with certified copy of this order supported by such documents as he may be so advised, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law on merits, without raising any objection with regard to delay, if any, by means of reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties preferably within period of one month thereafter, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no

CRLR No. 2474 of 2024

2

other legal impediment.

It is clarified that the revisionist shall continue to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 towards monthly maintenance allowance till the final outcome of the proceedings under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.

December 10, 2025 pks

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad