HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4123 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ram Sumer Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 4. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Case No.868 of 2020 (Jitendra Kumar Chaudhari Vs. Km. Riti and another) whereby the trial court has rejected the application 3-A filed by the revisionist for recalling of the order dated 5.11.2019 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 5. The brief facts of the present case are that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for maintenance allowances which was ex-parte allowed on 16.09.2016 and the revisionist was directed to pay the maintenance allowances of Rs.3500/- per month each to the opposite party no. 2/ Kumari Riti & opposite party no.3/Insafi (minor daughters) from the date of impugned order. Subsequently, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement, in which notice was issued to the revisionist and the service of notice presumes to be sufficient and thereafter, allowed the application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each from Rs. 3500/- in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, revisionist filed an application 3-A, recall application dated 4.12.2020 alleging therein that he has no knowledge about the notice and without giving any opportunity of Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Budhi Ram Gupta, Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Sumer Chaudhary Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) hearing to him order dated 05.11.2019 has been passed ex-parte order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The trial court after hearing the parties rejected the application 3-A observing that service of notice was found to be sufficient upon him. Hence, the present criminal revision before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the trial court has decided the application filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. without opportunity of hearing to the revisionist which was against the principles of natural justice. He has also drawn the attention to the Court towards the impugned order at page no. 3 wherein it has been observed that the registered notice (16-B) was sent to the revisionist, and as per the report of the process server, "he went to school for many times to serve the notice upon the revisionist but the service of notice could not be served upon him and the information was given to the clerk of the school, who has refused to accept the notice" 7. Tenor of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that neither the notice was served personally nor the notice was got from the office of the school as per the report of the process server, even then service of notice deemed to be sufficient which is not correct in the eye of law and cannot presumes to be sufficient. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned AGA opposed the submission made by learned counsel for revisionist and submits that the revisionist deliberately avoid to get notice serve on him but did not dispute the aforesaid fact that neither the service of notice was served personally nor he was got any information recieved from the office of the school. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the trial court is an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. 10. In view of the settled principle of natural justice, everyone should get a chance for affording opportunity of hearing to have his/her say in the instant matter. The impugned order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that one more opportunity should CRLR No. 4123 of 2024 2 be granted to the revisionist to have say before the trial court, so that the principles of natural justice are duly complied with. 12. Accordingly, instant criminal revision is allowed and the impugned dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Case No.868 of 2020 (Jitendra Kumar Chaudhari Vs. Km. Riti and another) is hereby set aside and the trial court is directed to decide the application (3-A) dated 4.12.2020 filed by the revisionist after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the revisionist as well as opposite party nos. 2 and 3, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the production a certified copy of this order before it. October 14, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 4123 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad