Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48198 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 837 of 2023 Revisionist :- Deepak Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amarnath Tripathi,G.A.,Ravish Chandra Srivastava,Vijay Kumar Ojha Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. This revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 762 of 2022 ( Deepak Pandey Vs. Abha Pandey), under sections 5 of Limitation Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is husband of opposite party No.2 and he is bank employee and on account of dispute between husband and wife and application under section 125 Cr.P.C was filed before the learned Family Court, by the wife( opposite party No.2) regarding which notice was not received by the revisionist that was the reason he could not participate in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C before the learned trial court. When the recovery warrant was sent against the revisionist, he came to know about the exparte order dated 11.10.2021 passed against him for maintenance Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party No.2. Since he was not given an opportunity of hearing and the case was decided ex-prate, therefore, he filed an application under section 126 Cr.P.C before the learned trial court to set aside the order passed ex-parte with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act but the learned trial court rejected the application under section 5 of Limitation Act vide order dated 21.11.2022 on the ground that registered notice was sent on the address of the revisionist and there was endorsement of receiving of notice, therefore, the notice was served and the case was proceeded ex- prate.No opportunity of hearing was given to him, as a result he filed criminal revision before this Court. It is further submitted that the revisionist is always willing to keep his wife with him and to reconcile the matter for this purpose this court directed him to make payment of Rs.2,50,000/- and he deposited the same before the learned trial court. He has complied with the order dated 5.10.2023 and made deposit of demand draft Rs. 2,50,000/-. Subsequently, on 26.10.2023 this court referred the matter to mediation centre and Rs. 12000/- was ordered to be deposited which was complied with and the matter was referred to mediation centre but on account of none co-operation of the opposite party No.2, the mediation failed. He further submitted that Rs.1,00,000/- more was deposited by the revisionist before the learned trial court on other occasions. He also submitted that on several dates in total Rs. 3, 60,000/- has already been deposited by him. Now he prays to allow this application under section 5 of Limitation Act and to set aside the order passed against him ex-parte dated 11.10.2021 and set aside the order of the learned trial court dated 21.11.2022 on the application under section 5 of limitation Act. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended that despite service of notice the revisionist did not appear before the learned trial court , as a result ex-parte order was passed , therefore, there is no ground for entertaining the application filed by the revisionist. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A, perusal on record and the order passed by the learned trial court, the bonafide on the part of the revisionist that he made deposit of Rs.3,60,000/- in compliance of the order passed by this Court and the matter being referred to the mediation but it could not succeed and the fact that the revisionist could not get an opportunity of hearing before the learned trial court but the order was passed ex-parte awarding Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party No.2, application under section 126 Cr.P.C moved by the revisionist as he came to know about the case when he received the recovery warrant, it will be against the principle of natural justice to deny an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay must be decided while taking lenient view and imposing reasonable cost. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 21.11.2022 is hereby set aside. The application under section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed on costs for Rs.1000/- and the learned trial court is hereby directed to decide the application already filed by the revisionist under section 126 Cr.P.C on merit after hearing both the parties within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, i.e two weeks from today. In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionst. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad