Dismissed¶26

Vijay Ram Verma v. State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2025CRLRD/431/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; delay of 1119 days; vague and misconceived explanation; financial crisis; poor labour; Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance application; Family Court Balrampur; Criminal Misc. Case No. M353 of 2019; Rajkumari @ Vinita Devi; Rs.3000/- per month maintenance from 07.08.2019; payment due by 10th of each month; Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 S.C.C. 324; manifest error of law; ill-treatment; compelled to live separately; meagre amount; criminal revision dismissed; CRLRD No. 431 of 2025; C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025; Saurabh Lavania, J.; Lucknow Bench; August 27, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The explanation offered in the affidavit for condoning the delay of 1119 days in filing the criminal revision is completely vague and misconceived; the Court held that no indulgence in the matter is required. ¶25

Vijay Ram Verma Vs State of U. P. Thru. Prin… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1119 days in filing the instant criminal revision should be condoned (C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025, Application for Condonation of Delay). +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the meagre amount (Rs.3,000/- per month) awarded by the Family Court and of its findings that opposite party no.2 was compelled to live separately on account of the revisionist's ill-treatment, the Court found the instant revision liable to be dismissed and dismissed it.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 11 — Saurabh Lavania, J.: Criminal Revision Defective No. 431 of 2025 (Vijay Ram Verma v. State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lko. & Anr.), decided August 27, 2025. Filed with C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025 seeking condonation of a 1119-day delay in challenging the order dated 28.04.2022 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. M353 of 2019, whereby Rajkumari @ Vinita Devi's (opposite party no.2's) Section 125 Cr.P.C. application was accepted ex parte, partly, and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month maintenance from the date of the application (07.08.2019), payable by the 10th of each month, in compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 S.C.C. 324. Held: (i) the affidavit explanation for the 1119-day delay (poverty/financial crisis of the revisionist, a labourer) being completely vague and misconceived, no indulgence was required; and (ii) taking note of the meagre Rs.3,000/- per month award and the Family Court's findings on issue nos.2 to 6 that opposite party no.2 was compelled to live separately on account of the revisionist's ill-treatment, the criminal revision was dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 431 of 2025

Vijay Ram Verma

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anand Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 11

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

C.M.A. No.1 of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay)

¶12

Heard Shri Gulam Rabbani, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶13

By means of instant revision filed along withi C.M.A. No.1 of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay), under consideation, the revisionist/ Vijay Ram Verma has challenged/impeached the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur (in short "Family Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. M353 of 2019 (Rajkumari @ Vinita Devi Vs. Vijay Ram Verma) instituted in terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶14

It is to be noted that vide order dated 28.04.2022, the Family Court awarded Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/Rajkumari @ Vinita Devi towards maintenance from the date of preferring the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 07.08.2019. The operative portion of the order dated 28.04.2022 reads as under:-

¶15

"प्रािथनी राजकुमारी उफर् िवनीता की ओर से प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना पत्र अन्तगर्त धारा 125 दं०प्र०सं० एक पक्षीय आंिशक रूप से स्वीकार िकया जाता है।

¶16

िवपक्षी िवजय राम वमार् को आदेिशत िकया जाता है िक वह मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पािरत िनणर्य रजनेश बनाम नेहा व अन्य (2021) 2 S.C.C. 324 के अनुपालन में प्रकीणर् वाद दािखल करने की ितिथ से प्रािथनी राज कुमारी उफर् िवनीता को मु०-3,000/-रूपये (तीन हजार रूपये) प्रितमाह भरण पोषण भत्ते के रूप में अदा करे।

¶17

भरण पोषण भत्ते की अदायगी प्रत्येक माह की दस तारीख तक देय होगी।"

¶18

For condoning the delay of 1119 days in the affidavit filed in support of application under consideration the revisionist has stated as under.

¶19

"3. That the revisionist is poor labour and by doing labour work he is earning his livelihood and earlier on account of financial crisis the revisionist could not filed the instant criminal revision before this Hon'ble Court within time. There is no intentional or deliberate delay has been caused by the revisionist.

¶20

4. That the impugned order passed by the court below suffers from the manifest error of

¶21

CRLRD No. 431 of 2025

¶22

¶23

law apparent on the face of the record, if same is permitted to stand would occasion a failure of justice causing irreparable loss and injury to the revisionist. The revisionist has every hope of success in the criminal revision.

¶24

5. That now after arranging necessary funds and paper as well as after its preparation the revisionist is filing present criminal revision today, therefore, the delay in filing instant revision is neither deliberate nor intention and occurred under the circumstances beyond the control of revisionist, which is liable to be condoned by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

¶25

From a bare perusal of the above, referred paras of the affidavit filed in support of application under consideration, it is apparent that the explanation given in same to condone the delay of 1119 days is completely vague and misconceived and therefore this Court is of the view that no indulgence in the matter is required.

¶26

Having observed as above and also taking note of the meagre amount, i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court to the opposite party no.2 vide order under challenge dated 28.04.2022 and also the findings recorded by the Family Court on the issue nos.1 to 6 framed therein more particularly on issue no.2 to 6, as per which, under compelling circumstances on account of ill-treatment by the revisionist, the opposite party no.2 was compelled to live separately, this Court finds that the instant revision is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed .

¶27

August 27, 2025 Anand/-

¶28

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Ram Verma v. State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Ram Verma v. State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rati Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow and Anr.

Mohit Rawat Minor Thru. Father Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Upendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Ram Verma vs State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Krishan Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another