Smt. Jauli and another v. Sachin Kumar) under Section

: : G.A., Roopesh Srivastava Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist stated that earlier he filed this revision to challenge the order dated 17.08.2024 and 31.03.2022 while due to some reason he delete the order date 31.03.2022 in the prayer clause.

2. Now learned counsel appearing for the revisionist is permitted to amend the prayer clause during the course of the day.

3. Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Sri Roopesh Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

4. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present criminal revision may be disposed of finally without calling for any further affidavit in view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today.

5. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 742 of 2022 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. whereby the court below rejected the application 12B and also the ex-parte judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 619 of 2019 (Smt. Jauli and another vs. Sachin Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kurra, District-Mainpuri.

6. By the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022, the Principal Judge has allowed the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 3000/- and Rs.2000/- per month to opposite party nos.2 & 3 respectively from the date of filing of application towards maintenance allowance. Against the said ex-parte judgment and order, the revisionist filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge for recall of the ex-parte judgment but the said application has also been rejected by the Principal Judge vide impugned order dated 17.08.2024. Hence the present revision. 2 CRLR No. 5903 of 2024

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022 has been passed by the Principal Judge without giving any notice and affording any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that in the proceedings under Section 126 (2) also, the Principal Judge has committed the same error in rejecting the application of the revisionist for recall of the ex-parte judgment. 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.

8. 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 maintenance allowance and Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party nos.2 & 3 regularly towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment and order.

9. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite parties and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the present criminal revision but they could not dispute that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is an ex-parte judgment and matter should have been decided on merits.

10. 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.

11. It is not disputed between the parties that the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022 is ex-parte and the same has not been decided after hearing the revisionist or his counsel.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 17.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 742 of 2022 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. whereby the court below rejected the application 12B and also the ex-parte judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022 passed by the 3 CRLR No. 5903 of 2024 Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 619 of 2019 (Smt. Jauli and another vs. Sachin Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kurra, District-Mainpuri are set aside.

16. The revisionist is directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance awarded in favour of opposite party nos.2 & 3 by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. Thereafter 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. The revisionist shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment till the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is finally decided.

17. It is also clarified that the total amount of arrears as deposited by the revisionist before the trial court in favour of opposite party nos.2 & 3 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.

18. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above. (Madan Pal Singh,J.) September 23, 2025 C. MANI CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: : G.A., Roopesh Srivastava Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist stated that earlier he filed this revision to challenge the order dated 17.08.2024 and 31.03.2022 while due to some reason he delete the order date 31.03.2022 in the prayer clause.

2. Now learned counsel appearing for the revisionist is permitted to amend the prayer clause during the course of the day.

3. Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Sri Roopesh Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

4. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present criminal revision may be disposed of finally without calling for any further affidavit in view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today.

5. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 742 of 2022 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. whereby the court below rejected the application 12B and also the ex-parte judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 619 of 2019 (Smt. Jauli and another vs. Sachin Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kurra, District-Mainpuri.

6. By the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022, the Principal Judge has allowed the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 3000/- and Rs.2000/- per month to opposite party nos.2 & 3 respectively from the date of filing of application towards maintenance allowance. Against the said ex-parte judgment and order, the revisionist filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge for recall of the ex-parte judgment but the said application has also been rejected by the Principal Judge vide impugned order dated 17.08.2024. Hence the present revision. 2 CRLR No. 5903 of 2024

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022 has been passed by the Principal Judge without giving any notice and affording any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that in the proceedings under Section 126 (2) also, the Principal Judge has committed the same error in rejecting the application of the revisionist for recall of the ex-parte judgment. 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.

8. 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 maintenance allowance and Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party nos.2 & 3 regularly towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment and order.

9. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite parties and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the present criminal revision but they could not dispute that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is an ex-parte judgment and matter should have been decided on merits.

10. 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.

11. It is not disputed between the parties that the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022 is ex-parte and the same has not been decided after hearing the revisionist or his counsel.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 17.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 742 of 2022 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. whereby the court below rejected the application 12B and also the ex-parte judgment and order dated 31st March, 2022 passed by the 3 CRLR No. 5903 of 2024 Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 619 of 2019 (Smt. Jauli and another vs. Sachin Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kurra, District-Mainpuri are set aside.

16. The revisionist is directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance allowance awarded in favour of opposite party nos.2 & 3 by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. Thereafter 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. The revisionist shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment till the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is finally decided.

17. It is also clarified that the total amount of arrears as deposited by the revisionist before the trial court in favour of opposite party nos.2 & 3 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.

18. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above. (Madan Pal Singh,J.) September 23, 2025 C. MANI CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad