Vijendra v. Omwati), under Sections

1. Heard Sri Raghwendra Singh, learned Counsel for the Revisionist; learned AGA for State; Sri Ankit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated

13.06.2025, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No.692 of 2025, (Vijendra versus Omwati), under Sections 126(2) Cr.P.C. / 145(2) BNSS whereby the application of the Revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along-with application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. have been rejected and confirmed the judgement and order dated

07.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No.362 of 2022, (Omwati versus Vijendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kailadevi, District Sambhal, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and directed the Revisionist to pay maintenance allowance Rs.5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of order and also pay Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of application to the date of order within a period of 60 days.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Revisionist that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi has committed manifest error in passing both the orders under challenge i.e. orders dated

13.06.2025 and 07.08.2024 without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the Revisionist as well as without considering the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the BNSS. It has further been argued that notice was not served properly upon the Revisionist, after restoration of the case filed by the opposite party 2 CRLR No. 4166 of 2025 no.2. The sufficient explanation was given in the application before the learned Court below to set aside the judgement and order dated 07.08.2024 and restore the case which was not considered by the learned Court below. The impugned orders have been passed in a cursory manner and on conjecture and surmises which are liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 argued that the Revisionist was willfully avoiding his appearance before the court below in case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and after providing sufficient opportunity, the Revisionist did not file his objection neither adduce any evidence, therefore, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi has rightly closed the opportunity of evidence and decided the matter on merits. While arguing the case for opposite party no.2 the learned counsel has admitted that the impugned judgement dated

07.08.2024 was passed ex-parte.

5. In the impugned judgement dated 07.08.2024 passed in Case No.362 of 2022, (Omwati versus Vijendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kailadevi, District Sambhal, it has been mentioned that on 22.09.2023, the Revisionist appeared before the court below and received the copies and thereafter on 20.12.2023 when the Revisionist was in judicial custody of Civil Judge (J.D.) / J.M. Sambhal at Chandausi he refused to receive the copies of petition which was sent to Revisionist through a Class-IV employee of the Court. Since the Revisionist did not file his objection and neither appeared before the Court below, the opportunity to file objection was closed. After that opposite party no.2 adduced her evidence but Revisionist was not appeared before the Court below neither any cross examination was made on behalf of the Revisionist, therefore, on

14.06.2024, the opportunity of evidence was also closed and the judgement dated 07.08.2024 has been passed ex-parte accepting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

6. After the impugned judgement passed, the Revisionist has filed application before the Court below to set aside the ex-parte judgement and order dated 07.08.2024 and the same was rejected by order dated 13.06.2025 on the ground that only mentioning the ex-parte accepting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would not amount the impugned judgement to be passed ex-parte. 3 CRLR No. 4166 of 2025

7. It is worthy to mention that Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. provides that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is willfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte. It is further provided that any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.

8. A perusal of record shows that an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. / 145(2) BNSS along-with application under Section 5 Limitation Act was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court Sambhal at Chandausi, but the grounds of such application was not discussed in the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 and the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has been summarily rejected as not maintainable and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been rejected without discussing the fact. It appears that the learned Court below has overlooked the provisions given in Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. that the ex-parte judgement and order may be set aside if good cause is shown in the application. Thus, it is clear that the learned Court below has failed in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it while passing the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 in Case No.692 of 2025 mentioned above, the order is incorrect and is liable to be set aside.

9. Insofar as the correctness of the impugned judgement and order dated

07.08.2024, passed in Case No.362 of 2022 mentioned above is concerned it is admitted fact that this judgement and order is passed ex-parte and proceeding the case ex-parte has not been challenged, therefore, no interference is warranted in this regard. It would be appropriate to provide opportunity of hearing to the Revisionist to press his application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. afresh before the Court below.

10. Therefore in view of the above, the order dated 13.06.2025, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No.692 of 2025, (Vijendra versus Omwati), under Sections 126(2) Cr.P.C. / 145(2) BNSS is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi to decide Case No.692 of 2025, under Sections 126(2) Cr.P.C. / 145(2) BNSS afresh according to the 4 CRLR No. 4166 of 2025 observations made hereinabove, after hearing all the affected parties preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. October 8, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Raghwendra Singh, learned Counsel for the Revisionist; learned AGA for State; Sri Ankit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated

13.06.2025, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No.692 of 2025, (Vijendra versus Omwati), under Sections 126(2) Cr.P.C. / 145(2) BNSS whereby the application of the Revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along-with application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. have been rejected and confirmed the judgement and order dated

07.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No.362 of 2022, (Omwati versus Vijendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kailadevi, District Sambhal, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and directed the Revisionist to pay maintenance allowance Rs.5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of order and also pay Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of application to the date of order within a period of 60 days.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Revisionist that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi has committed manifest error in passing both the orders under challenge i.e. orders dated

13.06.2025 and 07.08.2024 without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the Revisionist as well as without considering the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the BNSS. It has further been argued that notice was not served properly upon the Revisionist, after restoration of the case filed by the opposite party 2 CRLR No. 4166 of 2025 no.2. The sufficient explanation was given in the application before the learned Court below to set aside the judgement and order dated 07.08.2024 and restore the case which was not considered by the learned Court below. The impugned orders have been passed in a cursory manner and on conjecture and surmises which are liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 argued that the Revisionist was willfully avoiding his appearance before the court below in case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and after providing sufficient opportunity, the Revisionist did not file his objection neither adduce any evidence, therefore, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi has rightly closed the opportunity of evidence and decided the matter on merits. While arguing the case for opposite party no.2 the learned counsel has admitted that the impugned judgement dated

07.08.2024 was passed ex-parte.

5. In the impugned judgement dated 07.08.2024 passed in Case No.362 of 2022, (Omwati versus Vijendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kailadevi, District Sambhal, it has been mentioned that on 22.09.2023, the Revisionist appeared before the court below and received the copies and thereafter on 20.12.2023 when the Revisionist was in judicial custody of Civil Judge (J.D.) / J.M. Sambhal at Chandausi he refused to receive the copies of petition which was sent to Revisionist through a Class-IV employee of the Court. Since the Revisionist did not file his objection and neither appeared before the Court below, the opportunity to file objection was closed. After that opposite party no.2 adduced her evidence but Revisionist was not appeared before the Court below neither any cross examination was made on behalf of the Revisionist, therefore, on

14.06.2024, the opportunity of evidence was also closed and the judgement dated 07.08.2024 has been passed ex-parte accepting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

6. After the impugned judgement passed, the Revisionist has filed application before the Court below to set aside the ex-parte judgement and order dated 07.08.2024 and the same was rejected by order dated 13.06.2025 on the ground that only mentioning the ex-parte accepting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would not amount the impugned judgement to be passed ex-parte. 3 CRLR No. 4166 of 2025

7. It is worthy to mention that Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. provides that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is willfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte. It is further provided that any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.

8. A perusal of record shows that an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. / 145(2) BNSS along-with application under Section 5 Limitation Act was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court Sambhal at Chandausi, but the grounds of such application was not discussed in the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 and the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has been summarily rejected as not maintainable and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been rejected without discussing the fact. It appears that the learned Court below has overlooked the provisions given in Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. that the ex-parte judgement and order may be set aside if good cause is shown in the application. Thus, it is clear that the learned Court below has failed in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it while passing the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 in Case No.692 of 2025 mentioned above, the order is incorrect and is liable to be set aside.

9. Insofar as the correctness of the impugned judgement and order dated

07.08.2024, passed in Case No.362 of 2022 mentioned above is concerned it is admitted fact that this judgement and order is passed ex-parte and proceeding the case ex-parte has not been challenged, therefore, no interference is warranted in this regard. It would be appropriate to provide opportunity of hearing to the Revisionist to press his application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. afresh before the Court below.

10. Therefore in view of the above, the order dated 13.06.2025, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No.692 of 2025, (Vijendra versus Omwati), under Sections 126(2) Cr.P.C. / 145(2) BNSS is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi to decide Case No.692 of 2025, under Sections 126(2) Cr.P.C. / 145(2) BNSS afresh according to the 4 CRLR No. 4166 of 2025 observations made hereinabove, after hearing all the affected parties preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. October 8, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad