Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1074 of 2022
Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Deep Verma,Arvind Kumar
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Vinay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist; Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 as well as Shri Girijesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the State and perused the material place on record.
The under challenge is the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Barabanki whereby the cost of Rs. 3 lacs have been imposed for non-appearance of the revisionist before the trial court since 25.01.2021.
The learned counsel appearing for the revisionist contends that the applicant was kept on appearing before the Court concerned since year 2014 and in year 2020, the file with respect to the instant matter was transferred in the Court of Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Barabanki on 10.04.20220 and due to pandemic-19, he could not appear thereafter and the trial court has passed the order on 15.09.2022. He added that the Court below has recorded the facts that the revisionist was regularly appearing uptil 10.04.2020 and non-appearance before the court below is not a deliberate and he has explained his non-appearance, though, the same was not considered by the trial court in a right perspective. The order has been passed on the application under Section 126 (2) and the same has been allowed though, an excessive cost of Rs. 3 lacs have been imposed as a fine for non-appearance. He added that the cost is unreasonable and uncalled for and it is against the law propounded by the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, time to time.
In support of his contention, he placed reliance on judgement recorded in (2008) 8 SCC 31 and drawn attention towards the Para 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment. Referring the aforesaid judgment, he submitted that the case of the present applicant is covered in the aforesaid judgment. He further submits that thus, the order dated 15.09.2022 may be set aside.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Opposite party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the contention of the aforesaid and submits that the matter pertains to grant of maintenance and the opposite party No. 2 being a woman is running pillar to post and the present revisionist is avoiding the trial proceedings on one or the other pretext and further added it is an admitted fact that he is not appearing before the trial court since 10.04.2020 and thus, there is no illegality or erroneousness in the order passed by the trial court dated 15.09.2022 and therefore, the instant revision may be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it emerges that the case is running since year 2014 bearing the Case No. 33 of 2014 with respect to the dispute of grant of maintenance to the opposite party No.2. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Court below that the present applicant was kept on appearing since 10.04.2022 started from the date of institution of the case in the year 2014 and this Court has also considered the explanation given by the revisionist that the non-appearance before the court below is not a deliberate but that is due to the situation of pandemic-19 and he added that he is still ready and willing to appear before the Court and pursue the Case.
This Court has further noticed that while passing the order on 15.09.2022, an excessive fine has been imposed for non-appearance i.e., Rs. 3 lacs which could not be said be a reasonable amount of fine.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, the fine imposed upon the revisionist while passing the order dated 15.09.2022, hereby modified to Rs. 5,000/- on the place of Rs. 3 lacs. The revisionist is directed to cooperate with the proceedings of the Case No. 33/2014 and it is directed that the revisionist will appear on each and every date before the trial court and he will not seek unnecessary adjournment unless essentially required.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant revision is hereby allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
G.Singh
