Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49701 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1053 of 2023 Revisionist :- Swaminath Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist husband against the opposite party no. 2, wife against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court (Offences and against women) Azamgarh in Case No. 2447 of 2020 (Usha Vs. Swaminath) under Section 3/12 of Domestic Violence Act by which lump-sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been awarded in favour of wife and also the revisionist has been directed not to eject the wife from the joint family house where she resides, unless she is provided some alternative arrangement as well as against the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in Appeal No. 67 of 2022, Computer Serial No. CNRNo.UPAZ010053542022 (Swaminath Vs. Usha) by the learned Additional District & Session Judge, Room No. 7, Azamgarh, Police Station Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the learned trial court has passed the order ex-parte without giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. It is also submitted that no compliance affidavit has been received by the learned court from the opposite party as provided in the judgment of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the amount fixed for maintenance is in excess as the revisionist is an agricultural labourer and has no any independent source of income. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned court concerned and also by the learned appellate court, therefore, request to set aside the orders passed by the learned trial court and learned appellate court and allow the present revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the revisionist appeared before the learned trial court and later on knowingly abstained from the proceedings that was the reason learned trial court proceeded ex-parte and passed the order in question. On the basis of material on record in appeal this fact was well considered by the learned appellate court and it was found that the revisionist willfully abstained himself from the proceedings of the case, as a result appeal was dismissed. So far as the affidavit in compliance of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (supra) case is concerned, it is to note that when the parties belonged to the economically weaker section or are living below the poverty line or casual labourer the requirement of filing of affidavit would be dispensed with. The lump-sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- is not excessive since the opposite party wife has four daughters living with her. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of the material on record, the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, it appears that the revisionist appeared before the learned trial court and later on he knowingly abstained from the proceedings that was the reason the learned trial court proceeded ex-parte. No any application was moved before the learned trial court for recall of ex-parte order, as a result the order was passed on the basis of material present on record at the instance of the opposite party by which he was directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- and not to eject opposite party no. 2, wife from the part of house where she resides unless she is provided some other alternate arrangement. The learned appellate court also considered all these facts and found that the revisionist knowingly abstained from the proceedings of the case and dismissed the appeal. Since the revisionist as well as the opposite party belong to economic weaker section and are said to be casual labourers, therefore, affidavit in compliance of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (supra), case cannot be said to be compulsory but exempted. The amount of Rs. 60,000/- may be in excess for the revisionist since he is a labourer, therefore, it may be just and proper to reduce the aforesaid amount. Consequently, the said lump-sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- is reduced to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed and the lump-sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- is to be paid in the place of Rs. 60,000/- by the revisionist. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad