Allahabad High Court
Tilak Ram vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 26
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 334 of 2021
Revisionist :- Tilak Ram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Virendra Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 pandemic.
2. By means of present revision, the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2021, passed by the Additional Principal Judge - Ist, Family Court, Barabanki in Misc. Case No. 377 of 2020 (Computer No. UPBB020011642020) - Sarvesh Kumari and Another Vs. Tilak Ram, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the application for interim maintenance was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.8000/- as interim maintenance to opposite party nos. 3 and 4.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as it is an ex-parte order having been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. It is next submitted as per provisions of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. are applicable in the present case as the opposite party nos. 3 has left the matrimonial home without any cogent reason and therefore she has dis-entitled herself for grant of any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that application under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights is still pending consideration.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, no intererence is required by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Perusal of impugned order dated 19.03.2021, would indicate that the revisionist and opposite party no. 3 were married on 6th March, 2011. It has been stated that during the marriage substantial amount of dowry in the shape of jewellery and cash was given to the revisionist and despite that, being unsatisfied, the revisionist and his family members started harrassing and physically mistreating and assaulting opposite party no. 3 and also physically and mentally harassing her, and demanding her to obtain more dowry. During her stay at matrimonial home one daughter opposite party no. 4 was born on 14.08.2021. It has also been been recorded by the Court below that family members of the revisionist started physically assaulting and humiliating opposite party no. 3 to such an extent that she left her matrimonial home. With regard to financial status of the revisionist and his family members it is stated that the revisionist receives about Rs.2,00,000/- per month and in the application for interim maintenance she has claimed amount of Rs.30,000/- for her and Rs.10,000/- monthly for her daughter, opposite party no. 4.
7. In the light of aforesaid facts and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and perusal of impugned order it is clear that impugned order was passed on a date on which the revisionist did not appear. The revisionist never filed any objection to the application for interim maintenance moved by opposite party no. 3 and 4 and this fact has been recorded by the Court below itself, and further on the date fixed, it seems that learned counsel for the revisionist did not appear to oppose the application for interim maintenance and therefore the impugned order was passed. It is not contended that the order was passed on a date which was not fixed, or that the applicant did not have prior knowledge of the date fixed. Merely because the respondents chooses not to appear on a particular date without filing any application for adjournment, it cannot preclude that Court from proceeding in the matter. Further, it cannot be said that in such a situation the case has to be necessarily to be adjourned. The lower Court has duly recorded that no objections to the application for interim relief has been filed and the opposite party, nor has he appeared, and therefore the court has proceeded to pass orders on the application for interim relief.
8. In the light of aforesaid discussion, even though the impugned order is ex-parte, but it cannot be said to be infirm as in any view of the matter, in case any one of the parties is not appearing before the Court below, it has ample power to pass order as provided in Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. after considering the material available on record. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The second objection raised by learned counsel for the revisionist with regard to the fact that no order can be passed under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., it is noteworthy that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are still pending and the revisionist has also put in appearance and this fact has yet to be determined by the Family Court at the final stage and as such, it cannot be a bar on the Court concerned in passing interim order in favour of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 at this stage. The revisionist has an option to approach the lower Court for alteration of the allowance as provided for in section 127 Cr.P.C. or setting aside of ex parte order as provided in section 126(2) Cr.P.C., and therefore, on this ground also no interference is required by this Court and the present petition deserves to be rejected.
9. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 5.5.2021
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
