Allahabad High Court
Harish Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 22 December, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1333 of 2022
Revisionist :- Harish Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Utkarsh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard Sri Utkarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist, Harish Yadav to assail the judgment order dated 24.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.5, Lucknow as well as order dated 26.08.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.651/2019, Smt. Phoolmati vs. Harish Yadav, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the learned court concerned allowed the interim maintenance in favour of opposite party no.2 and thereafter issued recovery warrant against the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that vide order dated 24.11.2022, the learned Court concerned has issued recovery warrant against the present revisionist, which is patently illegal as the application for recall dated 08.12.2022, moved by the present revisionist, is pending. His further submission is that even the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in Case No.651/2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the interim maintenance has been allowed in favour of opposite party no.2 is also palpably illegal. Therefore, both the impugned orders dated 24.11.2022 & 26.08.2019 are not sustainable in law and deserve to be set aside.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that it is a deliberate delaying tactics adopted by the revisionist in order to avoid compliance of order dated 26.08.2019. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 24.11.2022 & 26.08.2019 cannot be termed illegal or perverse and no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is warranted.
Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the order of granting interim maintenance dated 26.08.2019 came to be passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.651/2019, Smt. Phoolmati vs. Harish Yadav is well reasoned and speaking order for the reason that the same was passed after service of notice upon opposite party i.e. present revisionist. The notice of service was held to be sufficient. Present revisionist did not appear before learned Court concerned and did not file objection. The present revisionist is stated to be working as assistant teacher and having salary of Rs.55,000/-per month and in addition to the same, he is stated to be earning Rs.45,000/- from other sources. Despite aforesaid fact, a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month was directed to be given to opposite party no.2 as interim maintenance.
It is also noticeable that the impugned order 26.08.2019 has been challenged in the instant criminal revision after an inordinate delay without showing any reason therefor. Even otherwise, having regard to the object behind incorporation of Chapter IX Cr.P.C. and having regard to the admitted fact that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the present revisionist, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 does not appear to be illegal or perverse.
Now coming to the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, it is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the same has been passed without recording any reason therefor and that too while his application for recall is pending. This Court has adverted to the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the revisionist and has been able to notice that on 24.11.2022 the present revisionist was not present in the Court concerned. Therefore, the order dated 24.11.2022 issuing realization warrant came to be passed in absence of present revisionist by fixing next date as 03.01.2023. Admittedly, seeking recall of order dated 24.11.2022 came to be filed by the present revisionist in the Court concerned on 08.12.2022, which learned Court concerned has directed to be taken up on the next date i.e. 03.01.2023. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 came to be passed during pendency of application of recall, which was moved on 08.12.2022 when the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 had already been passed. Therefore, no fault with the same can also be found.
Even otherwise, the order dated 24.11.2022 is an interlocutory order. The revisionist is always at liberty of bringing any subsequent fact to the notice of Court concerned by moving an appropriate application in Court concerned.
Thus, having regard to the overall aforesaid facts and circumstances of this Case, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 24.11.2022 & 26.08.2019. Thus, no interference in the same is warranted.
The revision lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.12.2022
A.Dewal
