Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Singh Raghav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:190258
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5874 of 2024
Pradeep Singh Raghav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Akhilesh Srivastava, Saksham Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sunil Kumar Dwivedi
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present criminal revision may be disposed of finally without calling for any further affidavit in view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today.
4. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 18th September, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr rejecting the application no. 3-A being Misc. Case No. 924 of 2023 (Pradeep Singh Raghav Vs. Smt. Dipti Tomar & Others) filed by the revisionist under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the ex-parte judgment and order dated 9th April, 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr in Maintenance Case No. 770 of 2022 (Smt. Deepti Tomar & Another Vs. Pradeep Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the Principal Judge while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ex-parte has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., though on 26th May, 2023, a notice was served upon the revisionist but due to his eye surgery he could not appear before the trial court and the trial court proceeded ex parte and thereafter he filed his objection and also an application for restoration but without deciding the same, the trial court has passed the ex-parte judgment and order dated 9th April, 2024 awarded the aforesaid maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that in the proceedings under Section 126 (2) also, the Principal Judge vide impugned order dated 28th September, 2024 has committed the same error in rejecting the application of the revisionist for recall of the ex-parte judgment. He, therefore, submits that in the interest of substantial justice, he may be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so that the matter may be decided on merits.
6. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the present criminal revision but they could not dispute that the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2024 passed by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an ex-parte judgment and also the trial court in the proceedings under Section 126 (2) has overlooked the compliance of principles of natural justice. They, therefore, submit that the matter should have been decided on merits.
7. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision including both the ex-parte judgment and order dated 9th April, 2024 and also the impugned order dated 18th September, 2024.
8. It is not disputed between the parties that the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2024 is ex-parte judgment and the same has not been decided after hearing the revisionist or his counsel.
9. It is settled law that every order passed, which results in evil civil consequence to a party, must be consistent with the rules of principles of natural justice, failing which the same would be unsustainable in the eyes of law.
10. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi- judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist should be granted one more opportunity to have his say in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Normally, this court could have set aside the ex-parte judgment dated 9th April, 2024 and the impugned order dated 28th September, 2024 to save the time of the trial court and both the parties and directed the trial court to hear the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh on merits after hearing both the parties but in the present criminal revision, only the order dated 28th September, 2024 passed under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. has been challenged, so this Court can set aside the same only and direct trial court to hear the case again under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C.
12. Consequently, the order dated 18th September, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr rejecting the application no. 3-A being Misc. Case No. 924 of 2023 (Pradeep Singh Raghav Vs. Smt. Dipti Tomar & Others) filed by the revisionist under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. is set aside.
13. The trial court is directed to consider and decide the application no. 3-A being Misc. Case No. 924 of 2023 (Pradeep Singh Raghav Vs. Smt. Dipti Tomar & Others) filed by the revisionist under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. afresh, in accordance with the law and the observations made herein above, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment. The revisionist shall pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 towards maintenance allowance regularly as awarded by the trial court under the impugned ex-parte judgment and order till the application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. is finally decided.
14. It is also clarified that the total amount to be paid by the revisionist in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 towards maintenance allowance as directed above shall be subject to final outcome of the proceedings under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., which shall be decided afresh as directed by this Court herein above.
15. It is made clear that in case the revisionist does not comply with any of the above direction, the trial court shall be free to proceed against the revisionist in accordance with law.
16. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
October 29, 2025
Sushil/-
