Suresh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Instant criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, read with Section 397/401 of the CRPC (438/442 BNSS) has been preferred against the order dated 03/12/2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar, in Case No.334 of 2025, Suresh Kumar Verma versus Sushma Verma.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in the present matter, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar, while deciding the Maintenance Case No.142/2025 under Sections 145 BNSS vide impugned order dated 15/04/2025, directed the revisionist to pay Rs.25,000 monthly maintenance to the respondent no.2 Smt. Sushma Verma, who is his wife. The revisionist assailed the ex-parte judgment and order through Miscellaneous Application No.142 of 2025, under section 145 of BNSS, which was decided on 14/11/2025. Learned Principal Judge set aside the ex-parte judgment on 15/4/2025, with the condition that the applicant/revisionist shall pay half of the entire amount of maintenance

¶14

CRLR No. 1477 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

within 10 days to the applicant. If the deposit of half of the amount of maintenance, the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be restored to its original number. The revisionist could not financially manage, pay or deposit half of the entire amount of maintenance in deference to the exparte judgment order and filed an application 3-A with a prayer to permit him to deposit three lakhs out of the arrears of maintenance, as he could not manage the amount directed to be paid pursuant to the order dated 14/11/2025 amounting to ½ of rupees 1,250,000, the total liability incurred under the ex-parte order. However, learned Family Judge has dismissed the said application on the ground that as the revisionist failed to deposit half of the amount of maintenance pursuant to the ex-parte judgment within the stipulated period of 10 days, the order will be treated intact. The court below has also observed that the only option is available to the revisionist/applicant to deposit the amount of maintenance due to be paid to the applicant during recovery proceedings. The part payment can only be permitted to the occurrence of the original applicant. He next submitted that the court below has ignored the financial constraints of the revisionist to pay half of the amount under liability within a short period of 10 days. The application has been dismissed by an impugned order, while taking a hyper-technical approach. When the revisionist failed to pay the remaining amount, he moved an application for extension of time on 24.11.2025 for depositing the amount as directed vide order dated 14.11.2025 but the same has been dismissed by the impugned judgment or order dated 03.12.2025.

¶17

Learned AGA submitted that the impugned order is not a final order and prima facie does not appear to be revisable, as the revisionist has been given liberty to pay due during recovery proceedings.

¶18

CRLR No. 1477 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

Be that as it may, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present petition pending and issuing notice to the respondent no.2 for appearance. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of , with the direction to the revisionist to deposit half of the entire amount due, pursuant to the ex parte judgment and order, within three monthly installments, the first of which will be payable on 21.01.2026. The second installment will be payable on the following months i.e. 20.02.2026, and 20.03.2026. And it is due from December 2025. If the revisionist deposits the said amount to respondent no.2 or deposits the same within a period of three months before the court below, the case under Section 145 BNSS will be heard and decided after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, in accordance with the law.

¶21

Let a certified copies of this order be sent to the court below for compliance.

¶22

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶23

January 6, 2026 KR

¶24

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

Suresh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Similar cases

Shiv Baran Alias Nanhu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Kapil Awasthi @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Ram Tirath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Satyanarayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Upasana Tripathi vs Saurabh Mishra

Yash Kishore Mathur Alias Yash Mathur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another