High Court · 2025

Revisionist :- Amit Mishra @ Satendra Opposite Party :- Addl. Principal Judge Family Court (First) Barabanki And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rekha Srivastva,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,Shikha Srivastva Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Smt. Rekha Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Mohd. Hanzalaand Sri Adarsh Pratap Singh, Advocate have filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, same is taken on record.

2. In pursuance to previous direction of this Court, Amit Mishra (revisionist) and Smt. Vandana Mishra (opposite party no. 2) have appeared in person before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels. The personal appearance of the parties was sought only to obtain their consent so that matter can be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center for mediation.

3. Opposite party no. 2 has informed that she is not ready and willing to participate in the mediation process because of her poor medical condition. She has submitted that she cannot travel from Barabanki to Lucknow to participate in the process of mediation and has declined her participation in the same.

4. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid circumstances, since opposite party no. 2 has not given her consent for participating in the mediation process, this Court do not find it a fit case for being referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court. Hence this Court proceeds to dispose of this matter on merits.

5. By means of present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act the revisionist has assailed the order dated 13.12.2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge (Ist), Family Court, Barabanki in Misc. Case No. 922 of 2020, under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., thereby application for exemption of appearance has been rejected and appearance warrant has been issued against the revisionist for his appearance in the execution case.

6. In the order dated 13.12.2024, it is stated that amount of Rs.13,400/- is due upon the revisionist in compliance of order dated 24.04.2017, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Barabanki in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated at the behest of opposite party no. 2. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a poor person and labourer and though he has paid certain amount as maintenance to opposite party no. 2, but is not in position to pay the entire outstanding amount and accordingly for the said reason has challenged the order dated 13.12.2024.

7. It is noticed that the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 were married on 17.06.2002 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and after marriage it was alleged by opposite party no. 2 that there was demand for dowry and due to which opposite party no. 2 was mentally and physically harassed by the revisionist and his family members. It is for this reason that on 12.11.2010 she was forcibly evicted from her matrimonial home by the revisionist and his family members and since then she is living with her parents.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Barabanki. The revisionist was issued notice and he put in appearance and participated in the said proceedings and opposed the application filed by opposite party no. 2. The Family Court after considering the rival contentions, framed four issues pertaining to the maintainability as well as merits of the case and was of the view that revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are married according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and revisionist is bound to maintain opposite party no. 2. Further it was found that opposite party no. 2 was evicted from her matrimonial home and she is living with her parents and does not have any independent source of income.

9. Opposite party no. 2 has stated that the revisionist is earning Rs.15,000/- per month and no material was adduced by the revisionist to contradict the said finding and accordingly amount of Rs.3000/- was directed to be paid as maintenance by the revisionist to opposite party no. 2, by means of order dated 24.04.2017. Validity of order dated 24.04.2017 has not been assailed and merely order dated 13.12.2024 has been assailed in the present revision.

10. It is noticed that the revisionist has failed to deposit the amount as directed by the Family Court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and consequently, an application for execution was filed on which impugned order dated 13.12.2024 has been passed. Considering the fact that it is not in dispute that revisionist has not paid the amount as directed by the Family Court as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and execution proceedings are under way wherein order dated 13.12.2024 has been passed.

11. This Court do not find any legal basis for interference in the order dated 13.12.2024. Merely stating that financial difficulties are being faced by the revisionist in complying with the order dated 24.04.2017, would not be a ground for interference in the order dated 13.12.2024. Had the revisionist been aggrieved by any of the finding recorded by the Family Court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it would be open for the revisionist to assail the same, but till date said order has not been assailed. On the other hand the revisionist has stated that certain amount has been paid, which clearly demonstrates that the revisionist has partially complied with the order dated 24.04.2017.

12. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned order. However, liberty is granted to the revisionist to appear before the trial Court and raise his grievance with regard to his financial difficulty and it shall be open for the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in the execution proceedings.

13. With above directions/observations, present criminal revision stands dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Revisionist :- Amit Mishra @ Satendra Opposite Party :- Addl. Principal Judge Family Court (First) Barabanki And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rekha Srivastva,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,Shikha Srivastva Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Smt. Rekha Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Mohd. Hanzalaand Sri Adarsh Pratap Singh, Advocate have filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, same is taken on record.

2. In pursuance to previous direction of this Court, Amit Mishra (revisionist) and Smt. Vandana Mishra (opposite party no. 2) have appeared in person before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels. The personal appearance of the parties was sought only to obtain their consent so that matter can be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center for mediation.

3. Opposite party no. 2 has informed that she is not ready and willing to participate in the mediation process because of her poor medical condition. She has submitted that she cannot travel from Barabanki to Lucknow to participate in the process of mediation and has declined her participation in the same.

4. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid circumstances, since opposite party no. 2 has not given her consent for participating in the mediation process, this Court do not find it a fit case for being referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court. Hence this Court proceeds to dispose of this matter on merits.

5. By means of present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act the revisionist has assailed the order dated 13.12.2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge (Ist), Family Court, Barabanki in Misc. Case No. 922 of 2020, under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., thereby application for exemption of appearance has been rejected and appearance warrant has been issued against the revisionist for his appearance in the execution case.

6. In the order dated 13.12.2024, it is stated that amount of Rs.13,400/- is due upon the revisionist in compliance of order dated 24.04.2017, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Barabanki in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated at the behest of opposite party no. 2. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a poor person and labourer and though he has paid certain amount as maintenance to opposite party no. 2, but is not in position to pay the entire outstanding amount and accordingly for the said reason has challenged the order dated 13.12.2024.

7. It is noticed that the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 were married on 17.06.2002 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and after marriage it was alleged by opposite party no. 2 that there was demand for dowry and due to which opposite party no. 2 was mentally and physically harassed by the revisionist and his family members. It is for this reason that on 12.11.2010 she was forcibly evicted from her matrimonial home by the revisionist and his family members and since then she is living with her parents.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Barabanki. The revisionist was issued notice and he put in appearance and participated in the said proceedings and opposed the application filed by opposite party no. 2. The Family Court after considering the rival contentions, framed four issues pertaining to the maintainability as well as merits of the case and was of the view that revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are married according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and revisionist is bound to maintain opposite party no. 2. Further it was found that opposite party no. 2 was evicted from her matrimonial home and she is living with her parents and does not have any independent source of income.

9. Opposite party no. 2 has stated that the revisionist is earning Rs.15,000/- per month and no material was adduced by the revisionist to contradict the said finding and accordingly amount of Rs.3000/- was directed to be paid as maintenance by the revisionist to opposite party no. 2, by means of order dated 24.04.2017. Validity of order dated 24.04.2017 has not been assailed and merely order dated 13.12.2024 has been assailed in the present revision.

10. It is noticed that the revisionist has failed to deposit the amount as directed by the Family Court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and consequently, an application for execution was filed on which impugned order dated 13.12.2024 has been passed. Considering the fact that it is not in dispute that revisionist has not paid the amount as directed by the Family Court as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and execution proceedings are under way wherein order dated 13.12.2024 has been passed.

11. This Court do not find any legal basis for interference in the order dated 13.12.2024. Merely stating that financial difficulties are being faced by the revisionist in complying with the order dated 24.04.2017, would not be a ground for interference in the order dated 13.12.2024. Had the revisionist been aggrieved by any of the finding recorded by the Family Court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it would be open for the revisionist to assail the same, but till date said order has not been assailed. On the other hand the revisionist has stated that certain amount has been paid, which clearly demonstrates that the revisionist has partially complied with the order dated 24.04.2017.

12. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned order. However, liberty is granted to the revisionist to appear before the trial Court and raise his grievance with regard to his financial difficulty and it shall be open for the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in the execution proceedings.

13. With above directions/observations, present criminal revision stands dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench