Dismissed¶12

Ravikant Pandey Thru. His Father Shashikant Pandey v. Smt. Neha Pandey

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2025CRLR/55/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:2853; decided 16.1.2025 by Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. Keywords: criminal revision; ex parte order; Family Court Raebareli; Crl. Case No.444 of 2022; order dated 18.10.2024; plea of mental sickness; application 32-kha; no documentary medical prescription; adjournment application rejected; delay of trial; destitute legally wedded wife; cruelty relating to demand of dowry; permanent house, 10 bigha land, medical store; sufficient means to maintain; no illegality in impugned order; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No illegality is found in the impugned ex parte order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Family Court, Raebareli; the revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. ¶11

Ravikant Pandey Thru. His Father Shashikant Pandey Vs Smt. Neha Pandey — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex parte order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the First Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli in Crl. Case No.444 of 2022 should be set aside. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

No illegality is found in the impugned ex parte order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Family Court, Raebareli; the revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist's plea of mental sickness was unsupported by any documentary medical prescription, and the Family Court, after considering his evidence and cross-examination, had concluded that he wanted to delay the trial and was otherwise mentally fit; this court endorses that conclusion in finding no illegality.

¶9

Key takeaways

It is not in dispute that the private respondent is the revisionist's destitute, legally wedded wife, residing away from him for sufficient cause as she was subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry, and the revisionist has a permanent house, 10 bigha of land, a medical store and sufficient means to maintain his wife.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision dismissed. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.), declined to set aside the ex parte order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the First Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli in Crl. Case No.444 of 2022. The revisionist had been absent on multiple dates after 17.2.2024; his application 32-kha pleading mental sickness carried no documentary medical prescription, and his adjournment application was rejected. The Family Court, after considering his evidence and cross-examination, had concluded that he wanted to delay the trial and was otherwise mentally fit. It was undisputed that the opposite party is the revisionist's destitute, legally wedded wife residing away owing to cruelty relating to demand of dowry, and that the revisionist has a permanent house, 10 bigha of land, a medical store and sufficient means to maintain her. Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merit.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2853

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 55 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Ravikant Pandey Thru. His Father Shashikant Pandey Opposite Party :- Smt. Neha Pandey Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Pandey,Shashwat Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.The revision has been filed for setting aside order dated 18.10.2024 passed by First Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli in Crl. Case No.444 of 2022.

¶7

2.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. In view of the proposed order, notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

¶8

3.A perusal of the record shows that after 17.2.2024, the revisionist has not appeared in the court on multiple dates and ultimately on 5.9.2024, he appeared in the court and gave an application 32-kha to the effect that he is mentally sick and is being treated in different hospitals. However, it appears that no documentary medical prescription has been filed with the said application. Again, 11.9.2024 was fixed on which date again, the revisionist remained absent. One more opportunity was given on an application given by the revisionist. Again on 23.9.2024, he did not appear in the court. Thereafter, he gave an adjournment application which was rejected by the court. Lastly on 3.10.2024, 17.10.2024 was fixed, still he did not appear in the court. Consequently, the ex parte order impugned in this revision was passed.

¶9

The record further shows that the Court while considering plea of mental sickness of the revisionist has considered the evidence and his cross examination before the court and thus has arrived at the conclusion that he wants to delay the trial and he is otherwise mentally fit.

¶10

It is not in dispute that the private respondent is destitute and is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is residing away from revisionist for sufficient cause as she was subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry. The revisionist has a permanent house, 10 bigha of land as well as medical store and sufficient means to maintain his wife.

¶11

4.From the discussion made herein above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶12

5.The revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.1.2025 kkb/

¶14

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravikant Pandey Thru. His Father Shashikant Pandey v. Smt. Neha Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikant Pandey Thru. His Father Shashikant Pandey v. Smt. Neha Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sagar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ravindra Pratap Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Deepankar Lahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Avadhram Shukla and 3 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishnendra Bajpai and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rafiq Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another