Allowed

Soorj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2026CRLR/218/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging a Family Court order setting aside an ex parte maintenance award on condition of paying Rs. 50,000 costs. The Court reduced the cost to Rs. 30,000 considering the revisionist's disability, allowing the original maintenance case to proceed upon payment.

What did the court decide?

Cost reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 30,000; ex parte judgment set aside on payment within one month.

Soorj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 218 of 2026

Soorj Kumar

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bipin Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent no.1 and perused the record.

¶10

Instant criminal revision, under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04/12/2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Criminal Case No.264 of 2025 under Section 145(2) of the B.N.S.S., Suraj Kumar versus Smt. Reeta and another, as well as an order dated 15/04/2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya, in Criminal Case No.150 of 2022, under Section 125 of CrPC, Reeta Gupta and another versus Suraj Kumar, by which the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- has been granted in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is physically disabled. He has filed his Unique Disability ID issued by the Government, which reflects 45% physical disability in both hands. Earlier, he was earning his livelihood by running a thela. He is not in a position to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs imposed in the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 for setting aside the ex parte maintenance order dated 15/04/2025, whereby Rs.6,000/- per month was awarded to the appellants, who are his wife and sons.

¶12

CRLR No. 218 of 2026

¶13

¶14

Considering the limited issue involved in the case, which relates to the payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- as a condition precedent for setting aside the ex parte judgment and order dated 15/04/2025, regarding which a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the revisionist to reduce the same and keeping in view the pathetic condition of the revisionist, notice to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is dispensed with.

¶15

The revision is finally disposed of with the direction that the cost imposed in the impugned order dated 04/12/2025, being a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 15/04/2025, is reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. If the revisionist pays the said amount within one month to the respondent No. 2 or deposits the same before the Court, the ex parte judgment and order shall stand set aside, and the original maintenance case shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶16

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶17

February 19, 2026 KR

¶18

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

Soorj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soorj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Triyugi Narayan Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vishambhar Nath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rahul Kumar Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mo. Aamin and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vishesh Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ramcharan vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Judge, Family Court Sultanpur and 3 Others