Surendra Kumar @ Ranjan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 7826 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 75
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 451 of 2021
 
Revisionist :- Surendra Kumar @ Ranjan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Prateek Sinha
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner.

2. This criminal revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 18.1.2021 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 4, District Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 142 of 2019 (Surendra Kumar Alias Ranjan Vs. Smt. Sudha Verma).

3. Contention of the revisionist-petitioner is that he was proceeded ex parte in matter of an application filed by his wife under section 125 Cr.P.C.. Revisionist gathered information about ex parte order dated 12.5.2017 when he was lodged in jail in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application under section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex parte order of maintenance which has been allowed by the impugned judgment, but the court below has imposed condition of deposit a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as cost inasmuch as it had determined maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month and there are arrears for 41 months totalling to Rs. 2,10,000/- out of which 50% has been directed to be deposited as cost.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a labourer and therefore, he is not in a position to deposit this huge amount.

5. When counsel for the petitioner is specifically asked that whether he has produced any document to demonstrate that he is a labourer then he fairly submits that no such documentary evidence has been produced by him till date. In view of such facts and the provisions contained in the proviso below Section 126)2) Cr.P.C., this Court is of the opinion that court below was justified in setting aside the ex parte order on the terms and conditions as are mentioned in the impugned order and that order does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity calling for interference. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.7.2021/S.K.S.