Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101457 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 911 of 2023 Revisionist :- Omprakash Vishwakarma @ Mallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganesh Mani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Notice was issued to O.P. No. 2 on 17.11.2023. As per office report dated 16.12.2023, notice has been served to O.P. No. 2 personally. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2 even in revised call. 2. Heard Sri Ganesh Mani, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed to set aside the impugned orders dated 23.07.2018 and 27.01.2020 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Maintenance Case No. F-253 of 2017 (Sarita Devi Vs. Omprakash @ Mallu) as well as impugned order dated 19.04.2023 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. F-360 of 2022 (Omprakash Vishwakarma Vs. Sarita Devi) under Section 126 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Chauri District-Bhadohi as well as entire proceeding. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is the husband of O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.2 on the basis of false facts filed an Application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. against him for her maintenance, which was ex parte allowed vide impugned order dated 23.07.2018 and when revisionist filed an application to recall the same under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. then vide order dated 05.10.2019, the same was recalled with certain directions but unfortunately, due to unavoidable circumstances revisionist could not comply with the direction given by the court concerned vide order dated 05.10.2019 and, therefore, vide impugned order dated 27.01.2020 the court concerned revived the earlier ex parte impugned order dated 23.07.2018 and thereafter when revisionist again filed Application U/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. then vide impugned order dated 19.04.2023 the same was dismissed. He next submitted that by way of instant revision, revisionist challeged three impugned orders dated 23.07.2018, 27.01.2020 and 19.04.2023. 5. He further submitted that as application filed by O.P. No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided ex parte, therefore, in the interest of justice it is necessary to set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2018, by which maintenance application filed by O.P. No.2 was allowed ex parte. He next submitted that the court concerned also committed gross illegality by passing impugned orders dated 27.01.2020 and 19.04.2023. 6. He further submitted that however, earlier vide order dated 05.10.2019 the ex parte impugned order dated 23.07.2018 was recalled but under unavoidable circumstances revisionist could not fulfill the conditions imposed by the court concerned and by the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 the same was revived and, therefore, the court concerned committed gross illegality by passing the impugned orders dated 27.01.2020. He next submitted that in the interest of justice, it is necessary that revisionist should be given opportunity to contest the matter before the court concerned otherwise, he will suffer irreparable loss. 7. He further submitted that after the order dated 27.01.2020, revisionist again moved an Application U/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recalling the ex parte order dated 23.07.2018 but the court concerned very casually dismissed it by impugned order dated 19.04.2023 and, therefore, committed illegality. 8. He further submitted that, therefore, the impugned orders dated 23.07.2018, 27.01.2020 and 19.04.2023 passed by the court concerned are liable to be set aside and instant revision is liable to be allowed. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer of revisionist and submitted that revisionist is the husband of O.P. No.2 and he is avoiding to pay maintenance allowance to his wife i.e. O.P. No.2, which was awarded by the court concerned vide impugned order dated 23.07.2018. He further submitted that considering the fact that the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 was an ex parte order, the court concerned itself recalled the same on 05.10.2019 with certain directions, which were accepted by the revisionist but revisionist did not comply the conditions imposed upon him by the court concerned and thereafter vide impugned order dated 27.01.2020, the court concerned revived the earlier impugned order dated 23.07.2018 and, therefore, it cannot be said that court concerned committed any illegality. 10. He next submitted that only with intention to delay the proceeding and to avoid the payment of maintenance allowance to his wife i.e. O.P. No.2, revisionist again filed Application U/s 126(2) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the court concerned vide impugned order dated 19.04.2023 and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the court concerned. 11. He further submitted that even revisionist did not challenge the order dated 05.10.2019, by which earlier application moved by the revisionist under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was allowed on certain conditions, therefore, the instant revision is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. Revisionist is the husband of O.P. No.2 and on 05.10.2019 court concerned itself recalled ex parte impugned order dated 23.07.2018 passed U/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the condition that revisionist shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- as cost but revisionist neither deposited the cost nor challenged the condition imposed in order dated 05.10.2019 and, therefore, court concerned revived the ex parte order dated 23.07.2018 on 27.01.2020, therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order dated 27.01.2020 is illegal. 14. Further, it appears, after passing the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 revisionist again filed an Application U/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recalling ex parte order dated 23.07.2018 but the same was dismissed this time vide impugned order dated 19.04.2023. In view of this Court again there is no illegality in the order dated 19.04.2023. 15. Further, from the record, it reflects, even after service of notice revisionist did not appear before the trial court, therefore, trial court started to proceed ex parte and passed an ex parte order on 23.07.2018 against revisionist, therefore, it cannot be said that court concerned committed any illegality in passing order dated 23.07.2018. 16. Further, from the facts of the case, it reflects, revisionist is avoiding to maintain his wife i.e. O.P. No.2 and is violating the provisions of law. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, the instant revision is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad