Panchal Ranjan vs Smt. Shivani
2025 Latest Caselaw 5728 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Panchal Ranjan vs Smt. Shivani on 25 November, 2025

                                                                                 2025:UHC:10487




                                                              Judgment Reserved On: 28.10.2025
                                                             Judgment Reserved On: 25.11.2025
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                           AT NAINITAL
                            Criminal Revision No.483 of 2024

     Panchal Ranjan                                                              ......Revisionist

                                                   Vs.

     Smt. Shivani                                                               .....Respondent

                                                  With

                            Criminal Revision No.536 of 2024

     Panchal Ranjan                                                              ......Revisionist

                                                   Vs.

     Smt. Shivani                                                               .....Respondent

     Presence: Mr. Tejas Agarwal and Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned
               counsel for the Revisionist.
               Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel, for the Respondent.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.


        Both Criminal Revision No. 483 of 2024 and Criminal Revision
No. 536 of 2024 arise out of proceedings under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure initiated by the Respondent-wife before the
Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.


2.      The Respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125
CrPC on 06.09.2023, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 274 of
2023. Summons in the said proceedings were received by the father of




                                                                                                     1
Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024,
Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

                                                                                      Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                  2025:UHC:10487




the Revisionist on 15.09.2023. The matter was posted for appearance on
05.10.2023.


3.      The Revisionist is employed as a Constable (Fire) with the CISF
and was posted in Tamil Nadu during the relevant period. His case is
that he was required to obtain prior permission and leave from his
superior officers to appear before the Family Court. The Revisionist
applied for such leave, but according to him, the same was not
sanctioned, which prevented him from remaining present before the
Family Court on 05.10.2023.



4.      The Family Court proceeded ex parte against the Revisionist on
05.10.2023 and, thereafter, by judgment and order dated 10.11.2023,
allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC, granting maintenance
of Rs. 15,000 per month to the Respondent-wife.



5.      Upon receiving knowledge of the ex parte judgment, the
Revisionist moved an application on 28.11.2023 under Section 126(2)
Cr.P.C., registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 360 of 2023, seeking
recall of the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023. The said application
was dismissed by the Family Court on 31.05.2024.



6.      Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Section
126(2) Cr.P.C., the Revisionist filed Criminal Revision No. 483 of 2024
before this Court.




                                                                                                     2
Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024,
Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

                                                                                      Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                  2025:UHC:10487




7.      In the meanwhile, the Respondent-wife initiated recovery
proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., registered as Misc. Criminal
Case No. 44 of 2024, for recovery of arrears of maintenance awarded
by the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023. On 09.07.2024, the Family
Court issued a recovery warrant against the Revisionist for Rs. 75,000.



8.      The Revisionist thereafter filed Criminal Revision No. 536 of
2024, challenging the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023 as well as the
recovery warrant dated 09.07.2024. Since the said revision was filed
with a delay, an application for condonation of the delay was moved.
The delay has been condoned by this Court vide order dated
19.08.2025.



9.      Both revisions pertain to the same matrimonial parties, arise out
of the same maintenance proceedings, and challenge interconnected
orders. They are, therefore, heard together and are being decided by this
common order.



10.     Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the Family Court
acted in undue haste in proceeding ex parte on 05.10.2023 without
ensuring proper service upon the Revisionist, who was posted outside
the State and was dependent on formal leave from his Department to
appear.




                                                                                                     3
Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024,
Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

                                                                                      Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                  2025:UHC:10487




11.     It is submitted that no further summons or notice was ever issued
to the Revisionist after 05.10.2023, and that the Family Court was
aware of his employment with the CISF, which required him to obtain
prior sanction of leave before attending court proceedings.



12.     Learned counsel submits that the Revisionist had applied for
leave but the same was not sanctioned, and therefore, his non-
appearance on 05.10.2023 constituted "sufficient cause" within the
meaning of Section 126(2) Cr.PC.



13.     The learned counsel argues for Revisionist that the Family Court
failed to appreciate these circumstances and dismissed the application
under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. mechanically, without considering the
constraints of a serving government employee posted in a distant State.



14.     It is further submitted that the ex parte judgment dated
10.11.2023 was passed without any compelling evidence on record, and
that the Revisionist was denied a reasonable opportunity of contesting
the maintenance claim on merits, which has resulted in severe
prejudice.



15.     With respect to the recovery order dated 09.07.2024, it is argued
that the proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. could not have been
initiated when the foundational ex parte order itself was under




                                                                                                     4
Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024,
Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

                                                                                      Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                  2025:UHC:10487




challenge in an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and thereafter
in Criminal Revision No. 483 of 2024.



16.     Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that both ex parte
orders, namely the judgment dated 10.11.2023 and the subsequent
rejection of the application under Section 126(2) dated 31.05.2024,
deserve to be set aside.



17.     Learned counsel for the Respondent-wife opposes the revisions
and submits that the Revisionist was duly served through his father on
15.09.2023, and having notice of the proceedings, deliberately chose
not to appear.



18.     It is submitted that the plea of non-sanction of leave is an
afterthought, and no material was produced before the Family Court to
show that any leave application was genuinely made or genuinely
refused.



19.     Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Family
Court acted within jurisdiction in proceeding ex parte on 05.10.2023
after ensuring service, and the Revisionist cannot now take advantage
of his own neglect.



20.     It is further urged that the application under Section 126(2)
Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected as no sufficient cause was made out for


                                                                                                     5
Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024,
Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

                                                                                      Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                  2025:UHC:10487




non-appearance, and that the Respondent-wife has been left without
maintenance despite the ex parte order subsisting since 10.11.2023.



21.     Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the recovery
proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. were necessitated on account
of persistent non-payment by the Revisionist and were wholly justified.



22.     It is argued that the revisions lack merit and deserve to be
dismissed.



23.     Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the record.



24.     The records disclose that summons in the Section 125
proceedings were received by the father of the Revisionist on
15.09.2023. The Revisionist, being in service with the CISF and posted
in Tamil Nadu, asserts that he was dependent on prior sanction of leave
to appear before the Family Court at Vikasnagar. The service particulars
and his place of posting are not in dispute. The Revisionist maintains
that he made attempts to obtain leave, but the same was not sanctioned,
due to which he could not appear on the first date, that is, 05.10.2023.
These facts were pleaded explicitly in the application under Section
126(2) Cr.P.C.



25.     The Family Court proceeded ex parte on 05.10.2023. The record
does not indicate that any further or alternative mode of service was


                                                                                                     6
Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024,
Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

                                                                                      Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                  2025:UHC:10487




attempted thereafter, nor does it disclose that any subsequent notice was
served upon the Revisionist before passing the ex parte judgment on
10.11.2023. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are intended to
be summary, yet they must adhere to the basic requirements of
procedural fairness. The spouse against whom the order is sought is
required to be afforded a real and meaningful opportunity of contest.



26.     The explanation furnished by the Revisionist in his application
under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. regarding non-sanction of leave and the
constraints arising from his posting outside the State constituted a
material circumstance which required due consideration. The Family
Court, however, dismissed the application primarily on the ground that
the father of the Revisionist had received the summons and that the
Revisionist did not appear on the date fixed. The order does not advert
to the nature of the Revisionist's employment, to his posting in Tamil
Nadu, or to his plea that he had applied for leave but was unable to
secure permission to attend the proceedings.



27.     In matters concerning maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the
Family Court is required to balance the need for expeditious disposal
with the obligation to ensure that the party likely to be affected by the
order is provided a reasonable opportunity of participation. The
Revisionist approached the Family Court on 28.11.2023, shortly after
the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023, which indicates diligence
rather than indifference. The sequence of events suggests that the




                                                                                                     7
Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024,
Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

                                                                                      Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                  2025:UHC:10487




Revisionist did not wilfully avoid the proceedings but was constrained
due to circumstances arising out of his employment.



28.     In these circumstances, the dismissal of the application under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. by order dated 31.05.2024 cannot be sustained.
The Family Court did not consider the specific reasons pleaded by the
Revisionist or the impact of his posting in a distant State, which
required prior sanction for leave. The explanation furnished does not
appear to be lacking in bona fides. The ex parte judgment dated
10.11.2023, having been passed without participation of the Revisionist
and without any subsequent attempt at service after 05.10.2023, also
warrants reconsideration.



29.     Insofar as the recovery warrant dated 09.07.2024 was issued in
Misc. Criminal Case No. 44 of 2024 is concerned, the same is evidently
founded upon the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023. Once the
validity of the ex parte judgment itself is under scrutiny in Criminal
Revision No. 536 of 2024 and the application for recall under Section
126(2) CrPC is simultaneously under challenge in Criminal Revision
No. 483 of 2024, the continuation of the recovery proceedings would
amount to enforcing an order whose sustainability is doubtful. The
recovery warrant, therefore, cannot stand independently if the
foundational orders are being set aside.



30.     It is also relevant that the delay in filing Criminal Revision No.
536 of 2024 has been condoned by this Court by order dated


                                                                                                     8
Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024,
Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

                                                                                      Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                  2025:UHC:10487




19.08.2025. As a result, the Revisionist is entitled to have his challenge
to the ex parte judgment considered on the merits.



31.     Since both revisions arise from the same matrimonial dispute and
challenge interconnected orders passed in the same maintenance
proceedings, the ends of justice require that the matter be remanded to
the Family Court for a fresh adjudication.



32.     In view of the discussion made above, this Court is satisfied that
the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023, the order dated 31.05.2024
rejecting the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., and the recovery
warrant dated 09.07.2024 cannot be allowed to stand, and require to be
set aside, with a direction to the Family Court to decide the matter
afresh on its own merits.

                                             ORDER

Both Criminal Revision No. 483 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 536 of 2024 are allowed.

The ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023, passed by the Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 274 of 2023 is set aside. The order dated 31.05.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 360 of 2023, rejecting the Revisionist's application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., is also set aside. The recovery warrant dated 09.07.2024 issued in Misc. Criminal Case No. 44 of 2024 is quashed.

Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:10487

The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are restored to the file of the Family Court, Vikasnagar, which shall decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity to both parties.

The Revisionist, being a serving CISF personnel posted outside the State, shall be permitted to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing whenever his physical presence is not feasible, unless the Family Court requires explicitly his attendance for any particular stage.

(Ashish Naithani J.) 25.11.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.11.25 16:26:30 +05'30'

Criminal Revision No 483 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani with Criminal revision No.536 of 2024, Panchal Ranjan Vs Smt. Shivani-

Ashish Naithani J.