Gavendra Kumar v. Smt. Padma Poonam) under Section

Misc. Case No. 271 of 2024 (Gavendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Padma @ Poonam) under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. on the cost of Rs. 25,000/- has quashed the ex-parte judgment dated 18th September, 2023 and also restored the instant case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that after filing of the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the revisionists, the opposite no. 2 has responded at the time of passing of the interim maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionists. However, after award of such interim maintenance allowance, the opposite party no.2 has deliberately absented himself from the further proceedings of the instant case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite repeated opportunities being granted by the trial court to opposite party no.2 and ultimately, the trial court has decided the instant case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ex parte vide ex-parte judgment and order dated 18th September,

2023. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that after passing of the ex-parte judgment, for not paying the maintenance allowance to the revisionists, opposite party no.2 has filed the application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the ex-parte judgment and order dated 18th September, 2023, which has been opposed on behalf of the revisionists vehementally. However, the trial court only on imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- has allowed the said application without considering the material available on 2 CRLR No. 5549 of 2024 record as well as the case pleaded on behalf of the revisionists before the trial court, which is per se illegal.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the trial court has committed gross error in allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., the same is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionists by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 for recalling the ex-parte judgment dated 18th September, 2023, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As such, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the judgment and order passed by the trial court dated 18th September, 2023 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an ex parte judgment as the same has been passed without hearing the opposite party no.2 or his counsel, therefore, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. This Court is also of the opinion that the opposite party no.2 has statutory right under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of an ex-parte judgment and the trial court has not committed any error in allowing the same after imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the applicant.

7. It is settled law that every order passed, which results in evil civil consequence to a party, must be consistent with the rules of principles of natural justice, failing which the same would be unsustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi- judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the opposite party no.2 should be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.and such opportunity given by the trial court under the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. This order of the trial court will not prejudice the rights of the revisionists 3 CRLR No. 5549 of 2024 without the four corners of justice.

10. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court provides that in case the revisionists file an application for grant of interim maintenance allowance before the trial court in Case No. 172 of 2020 (Smt. Padma @ Poonam & Another Vs.) Gavendra Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with supported documents and evidence as they may be so advised, within two weeks from today, the trial court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided that after disposal of the interim maintenance application, the trial court shall also consider and decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. Case No. 172 of 2020 afresh, in accordance with law and the guidelines as framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 12, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within four months thereafter without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

11. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, disposed of subject to the observations made above.

12. There shall be no order as to costs. September 24, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Misc. Case No. 271 of 2024 (Gavendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Padma @ Poonam) under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. on the cost of Rs. 25,000/- has quashed the ex-parte judgment dated 18th September, 2023 and also restored the instant case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that after filing of the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the revisionists, the opposite no. 2 has responded at the time of passing of the interim maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionists. However, after award of such interim maintenance allowance, the opposite party no.2 has deliberately absented himself from the further proceedings of the instant case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite repeated opportunities being granted by the trial court to opposite party no.2 and ultimately, the trial court has decided the instant case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ex parte vide ex-parte judgment and order dated 18th September,

2023. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that after passing of the ex-parte judgment, for not paying the maintenance allowance to the revisionists, opposite party no.2 has filed the application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the ex-parte judgment and order dated 18th September, 2023, which has been opposed on behalf of the revisionists vehementally. However, the trial court only on imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- has allowed the said application without considering the material available on 2 CRLR No. 5549 of 2024 record as well as the case pleaded on behalf of the revisionists before the trial court, which is per se illegal.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the trial court has committed gross error in allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., the same is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionists by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 for recalling the ex-parte judgment dated 18th September, 2023, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As such, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the judgment and order passed by the trial court dated 18th September, 2023 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an ex parte judgment as the same has been passed without hearing the opposite party no.2 or his counsel, therefore, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. This Court is also of the opinion that the opposite party no.2 has statutory right under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of an ex-parte judgment and the trial court has not committed any error in allowing the same after imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the applicant.

7. It is settled law that every order passed, which results in evil civil consequence to a party, must be consistent with the rules of principles of natural justice, failing which the same would be unsustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi- judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the opposite party no.2 should be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.and such opportunity given by the trial court under the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. This order of the trial court will not prejudice the rights of the revisionists 3 CRLR No. 5549 of 2024 without the four corners of justice.

10. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court provides that in case the revisionists file an application for grant of interim maintenance allowance before the trial court in Case No. 172 of 2020 (Smt. Padma @ Poonam & Another Vs.) Gavendra Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with supported documents and evidence as they may be so advised, within two weeks from today, the trial court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided that after disposal of the interim maintenance application, the trial court shall also consider and decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. Case No. 172 of 2020 afresh, in accordance with law and the guidelines as framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 12, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within four months thereafter without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

11. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, disposed of subject to the observations made above.

12. There shall be no order as to costs. September 24, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad