Vijay Bahadur vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Instant criminal revision under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the revisionist to allow the revision by setting aside the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi in Misc. Criminal Case No.992 of 2022 "Suman Pal and another versus Vijay Bahadur" and also allow the application moved by the revisionist for recall of the order dated 20.08.2025 for cross-examination of PW3/ Vijay Pal.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is the opposite party in maintenance case pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 had already been concluded on 20.08.2025. The case was fixed for crossexamination of PW3, Vijay Pal, but on that day, the revisionist could not turn up before the court due to high fever and he also could not inform his counsel. Later on, in the absence of counsel for the revisionist, the opportunity to cross-examine PW3 was closed by the learned Family Court. Due to deprivation of opportunity to cross-examine the material witness of the applicant, the interest of the revisionist is adversely affected. He moved an application for recall of the impugned order and affording an opportunity to cross-examine PW3 was earlier rejected on

¶13

CRLR No. 489 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

04.11.2025 on cost due to the fact that the name of the concerned witness was wrongly mentioned in application 23A dated 02.08.2025. Subsequently, he filed application 26A with the same prayer after correction of the name of the concerned witness, as cross-examination of Rajkumar was already concluded but the learned court below has dismissed his application on technical ground; that in the earlier application, the name of the concerned witness was wrongly mentioned as Rajkumar and now the opposite party seeks to reopen cross-examination of PW3, Vijay Pal. The learned court below also observed in the impugned order that it appears that the application has been moved only to delay the proceedings of the case.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the revision, as such, is not maintainable because the impugned order is an interlocutory order.

¶17

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the right to cross-examination of a material witness produced by an adversary is a valuable right of the parties to a case, although the right to cross-examination of PW3, Vijay Pal, was closed on default of the revisionist, as there was no one on his behalf present before the court to cross-examine said witness. Yet, in the larger interest of justice, an opportunity to cross-examine PW3 is liable to be provided to the revisionist. Therefore, the learned trial court is directed to recall PW3 for cross-examination by the revisionist on payment of Rs.1,000/- cost, which will be payable, either in cash or through demand draft in the name of the witness, to the witness on his appearance before the court, production of certified copy of this order before the court. It is needless to say that in case said witness appears before the court for cross-examination, no adjournment will be admissible to the revisionist on any ground whatsoever.

¶18

The revision stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.

¶19

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶20

April 30, 2026 Mohd. Sharif

¶21

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

Vijay Bahadur v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bahadur v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Arvind Kumar Yadav

Avadhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Pravej Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

Sanjay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another