Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45287 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 384 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rudra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sachin Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard. 2. The present revision has been filed for the following main relief:- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned Ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court III, Sultanpur in the proceeding arising out of section 127 Cr.P.C. in case No. 441/2019, Rekha Devi Vs Rudra Pratap Singh in the interest of justice." 3. By means of this revision the revisionist-Rudra Pratap Singh, aged about 62 years, impleading his wife Rekha Devi, aged about 55 years as opposite party no.2, has impeached the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court III, Sultanpur (in short 'Family Court') in Criminal Misc. Case No. 441/2019 (Rekha Devi Versus Rudra Pratap Singh), under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 4. By the impugned order the Family Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3500/-. Operative portion of order dated 06.08.2022 reads as under:- "आववेददिकका रवेखका दिवेववी दकारका प्रस्ततुत प्रकाररनकापत्र धकारका 127 दि०प्र०ससं० वकास्तवे बढकायवे जकानवे भरण पपोषण धनरकादशि असंशितत स्ववीककार दकयका जकातका हहै तरका पपूवर मम दनधकारररत भरण पपोषण धनरकादशि 1000/- (एक हजकार) रूपयवे प्रदतमकाह कपो पररवदतरत करतवे हहए मतु० 3,500/- (तवीन हजकार, पकासंच सस) रूपयवे प्रदतमकाह ककी दिर सवे भरण पपोषण धनरकादशि दनधकारररत ककी जकातवी हहै तरका दवपकवी कपो आदिवेदशित दकयका जकातका हहै दक वह वतरमकान मम दनधकारररत भरण-पपोषण धनरकादशि दनयमकानतुसकार प्रकारररनवी कपो आदिवेशि ककी दतरर 06.08.2022 सवे प्रदतमकाह ककी 10 तकारवीख कपो प्रदिकान करम।" 5. It would be apt to indicate at this stage that prior to institution of above indicated case i.e. Criminal Misc. Case No. 441/2019, the opposite party no.2 for enhancement of amount of monthly maintenance provided by the competent court of jurisdiction i.e. Rs. 300/- vide order dated 09.07.1993, filed a case in terms of Section 127 Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2010 and by this order the concerned court enhanced the monthly amount from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1,000/-. 6. It would also be relevant to indicate that Execution Case No. 825/2016 with regard to the case decided vide order dated 31.08.2010 is pending consideration and in the said case undisputedly revisionist is appearing before the Family Court. 7. The instant revision has been filed after delay of about 998 days as reported by the Registry of this Court. 8. For condoning the delay of 998 days the revisionist has indicated the following facts and reasons in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision, which are as under:- "3. That the present criminal revision has been filed under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned Ex-parte judgement and order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Sultanpur in the proceeding Under section 127 Cr.P.C. in case No. 441/2019, (Rekha Devi Vs Rudra Pratap Singh) by enhancing the maintenance an amount from 1000 to 3500/- per month to the Opp-party no. 02. 4. That the impugned Ex-parte order and judgement dated 06.08.2022 has passed against the revisionist awarding from an amount 1000 to 3500/- per month to the Opp-party no. 02. It is necessary to point out here that after passing the impugned ex-parte order and judgement dated 06.08.2022, the revisionist was not aware for the same and he is continuously paying the maintenance as awarded earlier by order dated 31.08.2010 till today. 5. That on 09.06.2025 when the Sub Inspector, Dhanpatganj, Sultanpur approached the house of the revisionist with the recovery warrant in pursuance of the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Sultanpur, then the revisionist knew about the said recovery warrant through his younger brother namely Surya Pratap Singh as the revisionist was Delhi at that time. 6. That after knowledge of the said recovery warrant first time, the revisionist approached before the Learned court concerned and inquired about the matter then he came to knew that the impugned Ex-parte order dated 06.08.2022 has been passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Sultanpur. 7. That the revisionist applied for the certified copy of the impugned Ex-parte judgement and order dated 06.08.2022 on 16.06.2025 and the same has been received to the revisionist on 21.06.2025 thereafter, the appellant contacted his counsel Shri Sachin Pandey, Advocate, High Court, Lucknow for filing his case before this Hon'ble Court and thereafter the same is being filed before this Hon'ble Court." 9. Considered the aforesaid averments/contents above quoted as also the specific findings given in the order under challenge dated 06.08.2022, according to which despite sufficient service, the revisionist chooses not to appear before the Family Court and therefore, the Family Court proceeded ex-parte. 10. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court finds that explanation given for the purposes of condoning the delay of 998 days, is not sufficient. 11. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision (C.M.Application No. 02 of 2025), is rejected and consequently the present revision is also dismissed. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench