Ramesh Raj @ Ramesh Vs Smt. Preeti and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23932

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 185 of 2025

Revisionist :- Ramesh Raj @ Ramesh Opposite Party :- Smt. Preeti And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Munni Lal Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Munni Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶7

In the light of proposed order notice to opposite parties is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act the revisionist has assailed the judgment and order dated 01.03.2025, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Sitapur, in Misc. Civil Suit No. 51 of 2024 - Ramesh Vs. Preeti, whereby the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected. Further by means of present revision the revisionist has assailed order dated 23.10.2018, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur thereby application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 1 has been allowed and revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.3000/- as maintenance to opposite party no. 1 and Rs.500/- to opposite party no. 2.

¶9

The revisionist had moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recall of ex-parte order which has been rejected by means of order dated 01.03.2025, only on the ground that revisionist has not paid any amount as directed by the Family Court towards maintenance and therefore the application for recall has been rejected. The trial Court while rejecting the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has also taken into account the fact that revisionist had not paid any amount towards maintenance and in the execution proceedings he was taken into custody and accordingly the trial Court had observed that five years had passed since ex-parte order grating maintenance to the opposite parties was passed and the revisionist for one reason or the other has not paid the said amount and accordingly even the delay in moving the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was not condoned and the application was rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist at the very outset has submitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, the revisionist had deposited the entire amount. It is further submitted that on the basis of wrong facts the recall application of revisionist has been rejected. It is next submitted that the revisionist has deposited entire amount due towards opposite parties and same was also recorded in the order dated 29.03.2024. The certified copy of the order dated 29.03.2024 which has been filed by the revisionist is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of present revision.

¶11

In order to verify the order dated 29.03.2024, learned A.G.A. was directed to confirm the said fact from the trial Court and as per instructions received from the concerned Station House Officer, it has been informed that infact the revisionist has cleared all the dues till 29.03.2024, but has not paid any amount subsequent to the said date.

¶12

Be that as it may, it is noticed that the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected on the ground that revisionist has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance granted by the trial Court in favour of opposite parties.

¶13

In the light of above and specially keeping in view the fact that revisionist has appeared before the trial Court and has deposited the amount due towards maintenance as recorded in the order dated 29.03.2024 and also considered the fact that the application of the revisionist has to be duly considered in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and right of the revisionist to contest the said order cannot be decided. Accordingly, this Court finds that this is a fit case for interference.

¶14

In view of above, order dated 01.03.2025, is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to afford opportunity of hearing to the revisionist and to file objections to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and then proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

¶15

With above directions the revision stands allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 A. Verma

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Raj @ Ramesh v. Smt. Preeti and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Raj @ Ramesh v. Smt. Preeti 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

Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Tasneem Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Karan Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raj Kumari Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Bijnesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sarla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another