Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24645 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 340 of 2024 Revisionist :- Harihar @ Harihar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arjun Singh Somvanshi,Vijay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. (Order on Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Office has reported that the present Criminal Revision has been filed with delay of 4158 days. 2. Heard on the application for condonation of delay. 3. For the reasons as stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, delay is condoned. 4. Delay condonation application is allowed. 5. The criminal revision is treated to be filed within time. (Order on Revision) 1. Heard Mr. Arjun Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of present criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the revisionist has challenged the judgement and order dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1305 of 2023 (Harihar Prasad Vs. Smt. Krishnawati) as well as judgment and order dated 10.01.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadipur, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 90 of 2009 (Krishnawati Vs. Harihar) filed by opposite no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that opposite party no. 2 is the wife of revisionist. Both of them have married as per Hindu Rites & Rituals. Subsequently an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party no. 2 in 2004 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadipur, Sultanpur. In the said application, it was stated that after the marriage, opposite party no. 2 started living with the revisionist and out of wedlock one son was born. Subsequently, the revisionist contracted another marriage and started living with other woman in the same house. The revisionist did not care of opposite party no. 2 and declined to maintain her due to which she was forced to leave the house. Accordingly, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The trial court after considering the application by means of order dated 10.01.2011 passed an order for interim maintenance of Rs.800/- per month. The revisionist did not put in appearance or moved any application in the said proceedings but has moved an application for recall of the ex-parte order sometimes in 2023. In the said application it is stated that the applicant had appointed a counsel to prosecute the said case as he was living in a far of place and the court was informed that as and when it was required, the revisionist would appear in person before the court concerned but the revisionist thinking that the matter is being prosecuted by his counsel, he did not appear and also not aware of the interim order dated 10.10.2011. The court considering the application has rejected the same stating that the revisionist was fully aware of the proceedings and he was duly represented by his counsel. subsequently neither did he appear nor his counsel and he has not diligent in prosecuting the said case, accordingly, has rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is noticed that since the order of maintenance was passed on 10.01.2011, the revisionist has not paid the amount of maintenance and no such averment has been made in the present revision also. Accordingly, though there has been laxity on the part of the revisionist in prosecuting the case because considering the fact that he is living in rural area after appointing his counsel he was full faith and trust in him, accordingly, he did not appear on each date of hearing. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that the revisionist is ready and willing to pay entire outstanding amount to opposite party no. 2 and accordingly the revisionist may be allowed to participate in the said proceedings. In light of the above, this Court finds that the delay has adequately been explained and merely because of the non-cooperation and non-appearance of the counsel, the revisionist cannot be adversely affected. Apart from the above facts, the revisionist is ready and willing to pay the entire dues as per order dated 10.01.2011, the revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1305 of 2023 is quashed subject to the revisionist deposits the entire outstanding amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within next three weeks. On deposition of the said amount the proceedings of the aforesaid case shall be revived and the trial court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench