Dismissed¶18

Nazim v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2026CRLRD/1648/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Harvir Singh, J.; Criminal Revision Defective No. 1648 of 2024; Nazim v. State of U.P. and 2 others; condonation of 924 days' delay dismissed; Sections 125 and 125(3) Cr.P.C. maintenance recovery proceedings; Misc. Case No. 897 of 2023 (Smt. Reena Parveen v. Mohd. Nazim); Family Court Amroha order dated 22.1.2020; Shivamma (Dead) relied on; grounds false on face of record; revision consigned to record.

What did the court decide?

The grounds taken by the revisionist for condonation of delay are neither sufficient nor convincing but false on the face of the record, since he had participated in the Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings and filed a written statement. ¶16

Nazim Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1648 of 2024

¶3

Nazim

¶4

.....Revisionist(s) Versus State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aman Srivastav, Braham Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Azhar Ahmad, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 86

¶6

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶7

Order on:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024

¶8

List has been revised. None has appeared for the parties.

¶9

Besides the present revision, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision has also been moved, seeking condonation of 924 days.

¶10

Ground taken in the application for condonation of delay was perused and the revisionist in paras 7 and 8 of the affidavit has taken the following grounds in respect of the condonation of delay, which reads as under:-

¶11

" Para No. 7:- That the revisionist has not been served any summons or notice with regard to the recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. which was filed by the opp. party no. 1 on 7.10.2023 in Misc. Case No. 897 of 2023 (Smt. Reena Parveen Vs. Mohd. Nazim).

¶12

" Para No. 8:- That the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Omveer Singh, Advocate, Amroha who is a practicing advocate at Amroha informed the revisionist that recovery proceedings 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the opp. party no. 1 against the revisionist. The revisionist applied certified copy of application dated 7.10.2023 which was received by the revisionist on 2.9.2024. The true certified copy of application and order sheet dated 2.9.2024 and entire order sheet from the date of 7.10.2023 up to 11.9.2024 are being filed herewith and marked as

¶13

CRLRD No. 1648 of 2024

¶14

¶15

Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this affidavit."

¶16

The revisionist has stated that he was not served any summon or notice with regard to recovery proceedings, but has participated in the proceedings initiated against the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is evident from paragraph no. 3 of the order dated 22.1.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha and also filed written statement in his behalf. The revisionist was not having knowledge of the pendency of the petition moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of opp. party, the ground taken by the revisionist neither sufficient nor convincing, but false on the face of record.

¶17

It is needless to say that, every case has to be decided on its own merit, but the conduct of, the litigant and the grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay are equally important and merely because the revisionist was facing financial crises and could not file the present revision is likely to make a substantive ground for none payment of maintenance. Moreover, having regard to the law laid down in the case of Shivamma (Dead) (Supra), no good ground has been made in filing the application for condonation of delay of 924 days and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Hence, the delay condonation application is accordingly dismissed and no further order is required to be passed in the present revision.

¶19

With the aforesaid observation, the present revision is consigned to record.

¶20

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶21

March 16, 2026

¶22

Gss

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nazim v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim v. State of Up and 2 Others

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

Similar cases

Urmila and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nilesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjay vs State of U.P.

Ravendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Rameshchandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.