HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1771 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause, along with delay condonation application as there is delay of 2812 days in filing this revision. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to summon the record and allow the Revision an set-aside/quash the Ex-party order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Second Banda in Case No. 237/IX/2013 (Smt. Shahjahan & 2 others Vs. Bhuttu @ Insaf) under section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station-Bisanda, Banda. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the court concerned to decide the Case No. 1000237/IX/2013 (Smt. Shahjahan & 2 others Vs. Bhuttu @ Insaf) under section 125 Cr.P.C. on merits after affording of hearing to the revisionist and it is also prayed that stay the effect & operation of order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Second Banda; during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision, and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Raj Karan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhuttu @ Insaf .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that against by the ex parte impugned order dated 18.09.2018, the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month to his wife/opposite party no.2 and Rs.1500/- per month each to both minor children/opposite party nos.3 and 4 as maintenance amount. He further submits that against the aforesaid ex parte order, the revisionist has filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the order and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2020 recalling the ex parte order dated 18.09.2018 on the cost of Rs.4000/-. He further submits that out of Rs.4000/-, the revisionist deposited Rs.1000/- on 17.02.2020 and thereafter again on 05.07.2021 another application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist, which has been dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2025 and details of the earlier application was also mentioned in the order. He further submits that after passing of order dated 08.09.2025, the revisionist has preferred this revision challenging the ex parte order dated 18.09.2018. 4. This Court has perused the entire record and finds that the impugned order dated 18.09.2018 was already recalled by the trial court on cost of Rs.4000/-. It is an admitted fact that out of said cost of Rs.4000/-, the revisionist has only deposited Rs.1000/- and Rs.3000/- is yet not deposited, and thereafter, another application for recalling the order dated 18.09.2018 was filed and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2025, whereas, only the ex parte order dated 18.09.2018 has been challenged by means of this revision. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the instant revision is dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay as well as on the ground of maintainability as against the impugned ex parte order, application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. is maintainable and the remedy has already been availed by the revisionist. 6. Considering the fact that wife and minor children of the revisionist (i.e. opposite party nos.2 to 4) are yet struggling in the Court, the concerned trial court is directed to initiate proceedings against the revisionist, if yet not initiated, for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount as well as monthly maintenance amount as early as possible by attaching the CRLRD No. 1771 of 2026 2 property of the revisionist and in case, the property is found insufficient, then the revisionist shall be sent to civil prison for 30 days as mandated by Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The concerned trial court shall also submit compliance report to this Court through the Registrar (Compliance). 7. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned trial court for ensuring its strict compliance. September 8, 2026 Manish Himwan CRLRD No. 1771 of 2026 3 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad