HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1429 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. Instant criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15/11/2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge-5, Family Court, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No.62 of 2022, under Section 125 of CrPC (Shivangi Prateek and another versus Prateek Omprakash Pande. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been paying interim maintenance to the respondent no.3 @ ₹30,000 per month and has paid ₹6,80,000/- as interim maintenance. The maintenance Criminal Case No.62 of 2022, under Section 125 CrPC is still pending before the trial court. In December 2024, the case was fixed for cross-examination of PW-1(Shivangi Prateek Pandey. On 28/05/2025, the applicant /PW-1 was absent. Three advocates appeared on behalf of the opposite parties on instructions of the counsel for the opposite parties Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Praveen Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prateek Om Prakash Pande .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) to represent him, but they were not permitted by the court below to represent the opposite parties. On 28/04/2025, applicant/PW-1 was also not present. On 29/05/2025 and 13.06.2025, she was also not present. On 06/08/2025, her exemption application was accepted. On 16/09/2025 revisionist filed tender of Rs50,000/- towards interim maintenance. His adjournment application was allowed on costs of ₹3,00/- on 15.11.2025. On 31/03/2025, three advocates filed a vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite parties, in addition to his regular counsel, and an application was filed by junior counsel on 15/11/2025 before the court below to adjourn the case in absence of senior counsel. The opposite parties sought adjournment or permission to cross-examine the witness through junior counsel, but the application was dismissed and cross-examination of PW-1 was closed. Apart from that recovery warrant of outstanding amount of interim maintenance for a sum of ₹6,90,000/- was issued. 4. Learned A.G.A submitted that cross-examination of PW1 was delayed at the instance of the opposite parties on one or other ground. The learned court below has closed the cross-examination of PW-1 in default of the opposite parties. 5. Keeping in view the limited issue involved in the matter regarding the opportunity of cross-examination of PW-1, which was closed by impugned order, I find it expedient in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the PW-1 to the revisionist, as this fact may not be lost sight that PW1, Shivangi Prateek Pandey is an important CRLR No. 1429 of 2025 2 witness in this case, and on being deprived of the right to cross-examine the interest of revisionist will suffer adversely. However, it is also observed that in case the opposite parties still fail to cross-examine the witness on one or other ground and seeks adjournment on personal ground of counsel, the trial court will be at liberty to close the cross- examination of PW1 on default of the opposite party. 6. The revision is allowed subject to the above direction. The impugned the judgment and order dated 15/11/2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge-5, Family Court, Lucknow stands quashed. 7. The revisionist is directed to appear before the trial court on the date fixed along certified copy of this order, the court below will afford him an opportunity to cross examine the P.W.-1. December 9, 2025 KR CRLR No. 1429 of 2025 3 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench