HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 313 of 2018 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Case called out. 2. None appeared on behalf of revisionist to press the revision. However, learned A.G.A. is present. 3. On 17.04.2018 the following order was passed:- “Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was moved by the opposite parties No.2 and 3 in the year 2002 when they were minors. The application for maintenance was finally decided on 30.03.2018, by which, the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 @ Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively, per months. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the opposite party No.2 has attained majority while the opposite party No.3 shall become major in near future. It has further been submitted that the revisionist runs a tea stall and has no sufficient means to pay the maintenance awarded by the learned court below. Issue notice to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 returnable within three weeks and list immediately after service of notice. In the meantime, it is provided that the revisionist shall pay Rs.2,000/- each per month to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and shall continue pay the same, during pendency of this revision.” 4. Thereafter on 14.05.2019 the following order was passed:- “Called on. Learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Mahmood Alam, Advocate and learned AGA for the State are present. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahmood Alam, Abdul Ahad, Atul Kumar Shukla, Gayasuddeen Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Anurag Srivastava, Om Chandra Sahu, Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Jagat Ram .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) As per office report, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are duly and sufficiently served. On revised call of the list, Sri Om Chandra Sahu, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, in the course of passing of the order, appears and seeks time to file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit may be filed within two weeks, providing copy to learned counsel for the revisionist. List on 29th of May, 2019 for orders. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the revisionist may file rejoinder affidavit, if any. “ 5. Again on 15.10.2019 the following order was passed:- “Case called out. None is present for the private opposite party. Learned counsel for revisionist is present. List in week commencing 4.11.2019.” 6. Taking note of the previous orders, on 30.11.2022 the following order was passed:- “Sri Mahmood Alam, learned counsel for the revisionist requested for adjournment. Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State is also present. It appears from the order sheet that learned counsel for the revisionist is seeking adjournment again and again. List this case in the next cause list. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.” 7. Taking note of the aforesaid orders as also the fact that the Family Court awarded meagre amount to the opposite party nos.2 and 3, who are daughters of the revisionist, this Court finds that the instant revision is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. August 26, 2025 Anand/- CRLR No. 313 of 2018 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench