Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.308 of 2023
Vibhor Rana
--Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another
--Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Dy.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This revision has been filed seeking to set aside
the ex parte judgment dated 02.09.2022 passed by learned
Judge, Family Court, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun in
Case No.92 of 2022, Deepa Rana v. Vibhor Rana u/s 125
Cr.P.C., order dated 21.04.2023 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.225
of 2022, Deepa Rana v. Vibhor Rana u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C.
and order dated 21.04.2023 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Vikas Nagar in Misc. Case No.259 of 2022,
Vibhor Rana v. Deepa Rana u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Facts of the case are that an application u/s 125
Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent no.2 against the revisionist
seeking maintenance. In that application , she prayed for
payment of Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance. The
revisionist did not participate in the proceedings and
accordingly by order dated 23.07.2022 the case was
directed to be proceeded ex parte against him. By
judgment dated 02.09.2022, the Family Court granted
maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent
no.2 from the revisionist from the date of institution of
petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
3. Assailing the ex parte judgment dated
02.09.2022, revisionist moved an application u/s 126(2)
Cr.P.C. being Misc. Crl. Case No.259 of 2022. The said
application was rejected by the Family Court vide detailed
order dated 21.04.2023.
4. At the same time, respondent no.2-wife had also
instituted execution case being Misc. Crl. Case No.225 of
2022. The said execution case was decided by the Family
Court on 21.04.2023 itself directing issuance of recovery
warrants against the revisionist.
5. Challenging all these orders, present revision
has been filed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. From the record, it appears that the revisionist
did not put his appearance before the Family Court and
accordingly the case was directed to be proceeded ex parte
against him. The Family Court being constrained
proceeded to pass orders for maintenance of Rs.20,000/-
against the revisionist. Against the said order, revisionist
preferred an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. That
application was decided by the Family Court by way of a
detailed order discussing all the issues raised by the
revisionist. The Court held that the notice sent u/s 64
Cr.P.C. was duly served upon him hence it could not be
construed that there was no knowledge of case to the
revisionist. The Court also recorded a finding of fact that in
order to avoid the responsibility of paying the amount of
maintenance, revisionist is adopting the delay tactics.
Even the Court also noticed the financial hardships faced
by respondent no.2-wife.
8. So far as execution case is concerned, that is
quite justified order. The Court recorded the finding that
the order dated 02.09.2022 had not been set aside and it
was valid and effective. Even after giving sufficient
opportunity, revisionist could not convince the Court that
he did not deliberately caused delay in making payment of
amount of maintenance.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned
orders passed by the Courts below. The revision petition
fails and the same is dismissed.
10. Inform the Court below to proceed ahead in
accordance with law.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.08.2025
Rdang
