Uttarakhand High Court
Vivek Kumar vs Bhawana And Others on 13 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 613 of 2022
With
Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2022
Vivek Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
Bhawana and Others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. K.K.L. Gautam and Ms. Vaishali Nariyal,
Advocates for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe,
Brief Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The revisionist proposes to challenge the
judgment and order dated 28.09.2021, passed in Criminal
Case No. 156 of 2020, Smt. Bhawana & Another Vs. Vivek
Kumar, by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
District Dehradun ("the case"). By this judgment and order,
which is ex-parte, the revisionist has been directed to pay
total Rs. 30,000/- to the private respondents from the date of
the order.
2. This revision is delayed. A Delay Condonation
Application has been filed, according to which, due to
COVID-19, the revisionist could not take steps on time.
3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
delay in filing the revision may be condoned.
4. Delay condonation application IA No.1 of 2022 is
allowed.
5. Delay condoned.
6. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on
admission and perused the records.
7. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy,
briefly stated, are as follows: the respondent no.1, Bhawana,
who is wife of the revisionist, filed an application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking
maintenance for herself and her minor son, respondent no.2,
Master Rishi. According to it, after marriage, the respondent
no.1 was harassed, tortured for additional demand of dowry.
She was expelled from her matrimonial house finally on
01.06.2017. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the
revisionist is Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department
of Uttar Pradesh and earns Rs. 90,000/- per month salary.
8. The revisionist was issued notice/summon of the
case. He appeared on 21.12.2020. Thereafter, dates were
fixed for counselling, but he disappeared. The following dates
and events are important:
(i) On 04.12.2020, the revisionist
appeared and moved an application, but
none appeared on behalf of the revisionist.
(ii) On 31.03.2021, an application was
again moved on behalf of the revisionist, but
none did appear on that date also on behalf
of the revisionist.
(iii) Thereafter, the revisionist disappeared
and the case proceeded ex-parte against
him.
9. The respondent no.1 adduced evidence in the case
and by the impugned judgment and order, which is ex-parte,
the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.30,000/-
maintenance to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the date of
order. It is impugned herein.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist
would submit that as per instructions of his client, the
revisionist did not receive any summon/notice of the case.
Therefore, he could not appear in the case. It is submitted
that the total arrears of maintenance, as per the impugned
judgment and order dated 28.09.2021, comes to Rs
2,03,000/-. The revisionist is ready to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-
now. He has brought the demand draft. Therefore, it is
submitted that the recovery proceedings may be stayed.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also
submit that, in fact, the court below has issued a recovery
warrant for arrears of maintenance to the superior officers of
the revisionist and the superior officer has issued notices to
the revisionist. Though, such officer is not authorised under
law to do so. It is also submitted that the higher officers of
the revisionist has written to treasury to deduct the salary of
the revisionist and deposit it in the account of the
respondent no.1. He would submit that it could not be done
under law.
12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the revisionist has placed reliance on the principles of law, as
laid down in the case of Mohd. Naim Siddiqui Vs. Sultana
Khatoon, (1982) 3 SCC 369. In the case of Mohd. Naim
Siddiqui (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia,
observed that, "we are satisfied that in this case the
husband had not been served with notice when the
matter was decided against him ex-parte."
13. Para 5 of the impugned judgment and order
reveals as to what had happened in the case. It has already
been narrated in the preceding paragraphs. The revisionist
was served with the notice. He appeared on 21.08.2020.
again he disappeared. On 04.12.2020, he moved an
application but again he disappeared. On 31.03.2021, again
he moved an application, but he again disappeared. It
abundantly shows that the revisionist was served and he
participated in the proceedings of the case. Therefore, the
argument that the revisionist did not receive any notice is
false on the face of it.
14. It is an ex-parte judgment and order. The
observation, which has been made in the case of Mohd. Naim
SIddiqui (supra) does not apply in the instant case. In that
case, summons/notices were not served on the parties before
passing ex-parte order. As stated, in the instant case, not
only summons/notices were served on the revisionist, but he
participated also in the proceedings.
15. The respondent no.1 filed affidavit and evidence in
the case and filed documents also. Based on it, the
impugned judgment and order is passed. The impugned
judgment and order is not incorrect, illegal or improper. The
impugned judgment and order is passed in accordance with
law. There is no reason to make any interference. Therefore,
the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
16. The revision is dismissed in liminie.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
13.10.2022
Ravi Bisht
