Allahabad High Court
Santram vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5396 of 2022
Revisionist :- Santram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Raghav Ram,Ram Lakhan Deobanshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present revision the revisionist is praying to set aside the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur whereby he has ex-parte allowed maintenance Case No.312 of 2017 (Sarita and another vs. Santram), u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded Rs.5000+Rs.3000=Rs.8000/- per month to opposite party nos.2 and 3 as maintenance. When the revisionist has filed a recall application No.10B, the same was also rejected by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur vide order dated 20.10.2022.
I have perused the orders impugned. An ex-parte order was passed by the court below on 05.11.2022 in favour of opposite party no.2 and 3 directing the revisionist to pay Rs.8000/- per month from the date of filing 125 application. In paragraph-3 of the judgment it is clearly mentioned that :
"?????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? 17.08.2022 ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ????"
In continuation of aforesaid, final order was passed on 5.11.2022.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he is at loss and unable to contest the case. Submission is that the proceedings were initiated in the year 2017 and an ex-parte order was passed on 10.12.2020, thereafter, an application was moved to recall the aforesaid order on 27.10.2021, but without deciding the recall application, an ex-parte order was passed on 20.10.2022.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is more than serious to abide by the directions of the Court and contest the case on merits, for which he is ready to abide by the conditions as the Court may impose upon him.
On the aforesaid undertaking given on behalf of revisionist, revisionist is directed to move an application before the court concerned on or before 25.01.2023 along with a demand draft of Rs.1.25 lacs in favour of Smt. Sarita Devi (opposite party no.2) with an undertaking that he shall keep on paying Rs.5,000/- per month regularly starting from 01.01.2023 by way of interim maintenance to Smt. Sarita Devi (opposite party no.2). If said demand draft of Rs.1.25 lacs is deposited, the court concerned shall hand it over to opposite party no.2 within a week of its deposit.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has also made an undertaking that his client would remain present on each and every date without any fail, provided a direction may be given to the court below to decide the maintenance case within a time bound period on merits.
On this assurance given by learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur is directed to gear up the matter and conclude the proceeding of Case No.312 of 2017 (Sarita and another vs. Santram), u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by 31.12.2023, without granting any unreasonable and long adjournment to either of the parties.
It is made clear that in addition to Rs.1.25 lacs, the revisionist shall keep on paying Rs.5000/- as interim maintenance in the first fortnight of every successive month starting from 01.01.2023 in the court concerned, which shall be disbursed in favour of opposite party no.2 within one week thereafter.
It is also made clear that while computing the final figure, the court concerned shall take into account the amount of Rs.1.25 lacs by way of demand draft and Rs.5000/- per month to be paid to the opposite party no.2 and 3.
With this observation the present criminal revisionist stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 6.1.2023
M. Kumar
