SHABANA TABASSUM ALIAS RUBY AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. (HOME) LKO. AND ANOTHER
CRLR/153/2025 · 2025-02-07
Brij Raj Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 122146 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 122146 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8113 Court No. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 153 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shabana Tabassum Alias Ruby And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Saima Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Issuance of notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. The present revision has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 97 of 2021 (Shabana Tabassum and others Vs. Barkatulla) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application under section 6Kha filed by the revisionist no.1 has been rejected. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was filed by the revisionist before the family court and the same was dismissed in default on
30.05.2025. The revisionist moved application No.6 Kha for recall of the order dated 30.05.2015 along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The revisionist had taken stand that she was suffering from financial crisis and that she had three children and she was somehow managing her home affairs therefore, she could not do pairvi of the case. The court below rejected the application on 28.11.2024 on the ground that recall application of the revisionist is not sustainable for the reason that it has been filed after six years from the date of rejection of the order and finding is also recorded that she was sleeping over the matter therefore, she was not entitled for any relief. After going through the record, I find that it is a case under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist wife who had three children and if she could not do pairvi of the case due to poor financial condition and she was some how managing her family therefore, view taken by the court below is harsh. The order passed by the court below is set aside. The revision is allowed.
The matter is remanded back to the court below to again entertain the application for recall and pass fresh order in view of the observations made by this Court after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties say, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Pks Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench