Dismissed

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2026CRLR/26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged a family court order restoring his maintenance application on payment of cost after setting aside an ex-parte decree against him. The High Court found the revision a gross abuse of process, dismissed it, and directed that deposit of Rs.10,000/- within a month would restore and revive disposal of the maintenance case.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 26 of 2026

Vikas Yadav

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ram Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶11

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.11.2025, by which the ex-parte judgment and order dated 27.11.2023 has been set aside on payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost; it is also directed in the impugned order that in case the applicant (the present revisionist), fails to deposit the cost, the said order shall become infructuous.

¶12

Prima facie, on perusal of the pleadings in the present revision, it appears that this is not bonafide; instead of this is not a case in which an application under Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 145(2) BNSS. This is not a case where an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree of maintenance passed against the revisionisthusband has been dismissed but the same has been allowed on payment of Rs.10,000/- cost, which cannot be said to be exorbitant or unreasonable on the facts of the case, in as much as it is also directed in the impugned order that the cost will be payable to the original applicant, who has filed the maintenance case before the family court. The prayer of the revisionist is that the case may be sent for mediation as he is willing to keep his wife with him.

¶13

CRLR No. 26 of 2026

¶14

¶15

Be that it may, at this stage, as in the present matter, these things are not matter in issue. It is difficult to comprehend as to when the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and order, moved by the revisionist, has been allowed by the trial court, instead of complying with the said order by depositing the cost, the revisionist has approved this Court, which is a gross abuse of process of law.

¶16

The revision petition is without merit and is dismissed . However, it is clarified that in case the revisionist deposits Rs.10,000/- cost within a month from today before the trial court or pays the same to respondent no.2, the maintenance case will be restored to its original number and will be disposed of in accordance with law by the trial court. However, if the revisionist fails to deposit the cost as directed in this revision, the impugned ex-parte judgment shall be effective.

¶17

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶18

January 13, 2026

¶19

Mohd. Sharif

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Vaibhav Tivari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Syam Krishna Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Champa Devi @ Champa @ Badka and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Surya Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Alias Shubham Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another