Mithlesh Mishra v. Sujita Devi Others), under Section

despite the fact that name of Mr. A.T. Pandey, Advocate has been shown on her behalf in the cause list.

2. Heard Mr. Sunil Vashishth, learned counsel for the revisionist and the A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 29th July, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Case No. 619 of 2024 (Mithlesh Mishra Vs. Sujita Devi & Others), under Section 126 (2) as well as the impugned ex parte judgment dated 4th April, 2024 passed by the same Principal Judge in Maintenance Case No. 522 of 2018 (Sujita Devi & Others Vs. Mithlesh Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that marriage of the revisionist has been solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 20th May, 2009 and from the aforesaid wedlock, two daughters i.e. opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were born. Since the marriage, relationship between both of them became strained and incompatible. Whereafter opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which after service of notice the revisionist filed his written statements. Thereafter the trial court without hearing the revisionist or his counsel to rebutt the case of opposite party no.2, has passed the ex parte judgment dated 4th April, 2024 has partly allowed the maintenance case filed by opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 since 5th August, 2018 i.e. the date of filing of said maintenance case and Rs. 5,000/- per month each to opposite party no.s 3 and 4 since 5th August, 2018 to 23rd July, 2021. 2 CRLR No. 5571 of 2024

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that against the said ex- parte judgment, the revisionist has filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the said ex-parte judgment. However, the trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist without appreciation the fact that opposite nos. 3 and 4 were residing with the revisionist (their father) and never lived with opposite party no.2 (their mother). The trial court under Section 126 (2) has also violated the principles of natural justice even though the revisionist has shown sufficient cause for his absence in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that in the interest of substantial justice, he may be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so that the matter may be decided on merits.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for the revisionist states that if the ex- parte judgment and order passed by the trial court is set aside and till the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is finally decided afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, he is ready to pay some amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- towards arrears of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment and order within one month from today.

7. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the present criminal revision but they could not dispute that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court allowing the maintenance case filed by opposite party no.2 is an ex-parte judgment and matter should have been decided on merits.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision including both the impugned judgments.

9. It is not disputed between the parties that the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2024 is ex-parte and the same has not been decided after hearing the revisionist or his counsel.

10. 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.

11. 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 3 CRLR No. 5571 of 2024 rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.

12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist should be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

13. Consequently, the order dated 29th July, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Case No. 619 of 2024 (Mithlesh Mishra Vs. Sujita Devi & Others), under Section 126 (2) as well as the impugned ex parte judgment dated 4th April, 2024 passed by the same Principal Judge in Maintenance Case No. 522 of 2018 (Sujita Devi & Others Vs. Mithlesh Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are set aside.

14. The revisionist is directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment along with a certified copy of this order within four weeks from today. After deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- the trial court shall consider and decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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 two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with a receipt of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance by the revisionist, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

15. It is also clarified that the total amount of arrears as deposited by the revisionist before the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 as directed above shall be subject to final outcome of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which shall be decided afresh as directed by this Court herein above.

16. It is made clear that in case the revisionist does not comply with any of the above direction, the trial court shall be free to proceed against the revisionist in accordance with law.

17. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above. September 24, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

despite the fact that name of Mr. A.T. Pandey, Advocate has been shown on her behalf in the cause list.

2. Heard Mr. Sunil Vashishth, learned counsel for the revisionist and the A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 29th July, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Case No. 619 of 2024 (Mithlesh Mishra Vs. Sujita Devi & Others), under Section 126 (2) as well as the impugned ex parte judgment dated 4th April, 2024 passed by the same Principal Judge in Maintenance Case No. 522 of 2018 (Sujita Devi & Others Vs. Mithlesh Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that marriage of the revisionist has been solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 20th May, 2009 and from the aforesaid wedlock, two daughters i.e. opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were born. Since the marriage, relationship between both of them became strained and incompatible. Whereafter opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which after service of notice the revisionist filed his written statements. Thereafter the trial court without hearing the revisionist or his counsel to rebutt the case of opposite party no.2, has passed the ex parte judgment dated 4th April, 2024 has partly allowed the maintenance case filed by opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 since 5th August, 2018 i.e. the date of filing of said maintenance case and Rs. 5,000/- per month each to opposite party no.s 3 and 4 since 5th August, 2018 to 23rd July, 2021. 2 CRLR No. 5571 of 2024

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that against the said ex- parte judgment, the revisionist has filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the said ex-parte judgment. However, the trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist without appreciation the fact that opposite nos. 3 and 4 were residing with the revisionist (their father) and never lived with opposite party no.2 (their mother). The trial court under Section 126 (2) has also violated the principles of natural justice even though the revisionist has shown sufficient cause for his absence in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that in the interest of substantial justice, he may be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so that the matter may be decided on merits.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for the revisionist states that if the ex- parte judgment and order passed by the trial court is set aside and till the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is finally decided afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, he is ready to pay some amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- towards arrears of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment and order within one month from today.

7. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the present criminal revision but they could not dispute that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court allowing the maintenance case filed by opposite party no.2 is an ex-parte judgment and matter should have been decided on merits.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision including both the impugned judgments.

9. It is not disputed between the parties that the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2024 is ex-parte and the same has not been decided after hearing the revisionist or his counsel.

10. 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.

11. 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 3 CRLR No. 5571 of 2024 rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.

12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist should be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

13. Consequently, the order dated 29th July, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Case No. 619 of 2024 (Mithlesh Mishra Vs. Sujita Devi & Others), under Section 126 (2) as well as the impugned ex parte judgment dated 4th April, 2024 passed by the same Principal Judge in Maintenance Case No. 522 of 2018 (Sujita Devi & Others Vs. Mithlesh Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are set aside.

14. The revisionist is directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment along with a certified copy of this order within four weeks from today. After deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- the trial court shall consider and decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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 two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with a receipt of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance by the revisionist, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

15. It is also clarified that the total amount of arrears as deposited by the revisionist before the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 as directed above shall be subject to final outcome of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which shall be decided afresh as directed by this Court herein above.

16. It is made clear that in case the revisionist does not comply with any of the above direction, the trial court shall be free to proceed against the revisionist in accordance with law.

17. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above. September 24, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad