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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision disposed of finally. The revisionist is directed to avail the remedy under the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. by filing an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the trial court within 30 days, to be heard and decided after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. No alteration of the maintenance amounts was made by this court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision praying to set aside the ex-parte judgment/order dated 27.03.2025 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be allowed, the revisionist submitting that no opportunity of cross-examination or hearing was given to him. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 27.03.2025 was passed ex-parte against the revisionist, and the remedy available to him against it lies under the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.

Key takeaways

In view of the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., the revisionist is directed to file an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court within 30 days from the date of the order.ratio¶13
The said application shall be heard and decided by the learned trial court after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3220 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:118069; Order dated 21.7.2025). Revision sought setting aside of the judgment and order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Case No. 275/11 of 2022 (Smt. Subham Saini and another Vs. Arvind Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar, wherein maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month was fixed for the wife and Rs. 3000/- per month for the minor son, ex-parte. The revisionist submitted that no opportunity of cross-examination or hearing was given to him, and that his divorce decree obtained under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty (the wife's appeal having been dismissed) was not considered by the trial court. Finding that the order had been passed ex-parte and that the remedy lay under the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., the court disposed of the revision, directing the revisionist to file an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the trial court within 30 days, to be heard and decided after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118069

Court No. - 84

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3220 of 2025

Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shashank Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Case No. 275/11 of 2022 (Smt. Subham Saini and another Vs. Arvind Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar.

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 son of the revisionist. She filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court which was decided ex-parte dated 27.03.2025, fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of minor son. Further submitted that a decree of divorce was also allowed in favour of revisionist by the learned court under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty even though it was not taken into consideration by the learned trial court. Appeal against that decree was filed by the wife which was also dismissed. It is also submitted that the order under Section 125 Cr.P.c. was passed ex-parte. No any opportunity of cross-examination was given to the revisionist from opposite party. He could not get an opportunity of hearing, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 27.03.2025, it appears that the aforesaid order has been

passed ex-parte against the revisionist regarding which there is remedy available to him under proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. which is as follows:

"Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper."

In view of the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. the revisionist is directed to file an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court within a period of 30 days from today that shall be heard and decided by the learned trial court after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of, finally.

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Anurag Singh

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