HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1828 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application 1. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he has preferred the present revision along with delay condonation application. 2. The instant revision is reported to be beyond time by 18 days. 3. Cause shown for delay in the affidavit supporting delay condonation application has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. 4. The delay condonation application is allowed. 5. Delay in filing this revision is hereby condoned. Ref: Order on Criminal Revision 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he has preferred the instant criminal revision with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision. 7. The relief which has been mentioned in the revision is delineated below:- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present Criminal Revision and set aside the ex-parte judgement and order dated 16.05.2026 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Bareilly in Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Tahir Husain Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shamim Ahamad .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Criminal Misc. Case no. 1739 of 2024 (Smt. Rawayat Fatma and another Vs. Shamim Ahmad), under section 144 of B.N.S.S., Police Station District Bareilly. Visharatganj," 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that against the ex parte final order dated 16.05.2026 passed under Section 144 of B.N.S.S., the present revision has been preferred. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that by the ex parte order, the application filed under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. was finally allowed. He further submits that there is a provision for filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for recalling the ex parte maintenance order. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that he does not want to press this case on merit and he shall raise all the grievances by filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. before the trial court. 10. Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. assisted the Court and submitted that there is a provision under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for filing an application for recalling the ex parte order and the same can be availed before the trial court, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. For ready reference Section 126 Cr.P.C. is being delineated below :- "126. Procedure. (1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district- (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child. (2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the CRLRD No. 1828 of 2026 2 presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases: Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. (3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just." 11. Learned A.G.A. further submits that this aspect has already been decided by this Court in Criminal Revision Defective No.141 of 2026 (Anup Kumar Vs. Smt. Pratibha Kushwaha and others) vide order dated 30.03.2026 and a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.2099 of 2026 (Abhishek Gond vs. State of U.P. and others) vide order dated 01.04.2026, has also held that as per Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., against an ex parte order passed in an application for maintenance, the remedy available to the revisionist is to move an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the concerned family court. 12. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed at this stage on the ground of maintainability as there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for filing an application before the trial court and the revisionist is at liberty to avail the said remedy, if so advised. September 14, 2026 K.Tiwari CRLRD No. 1828 of 2026 3 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad