Court No. - 87

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3402 of 2022

Revisionist :- Smt. Uma Verma And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Dilip Kumar Goswami,Anil Kumar

Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the material on record.

The present revision has been filed for quashing the Judgement

and order dated 01.08.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 827 of 2021 (Rajendra Singh

Gautam Vs. Smt. Uma Verma and others) under Section 126 (2)

Cr.P.C.whereby application 3A filed by the opposite party no.2

for recalling the exparte Judgement and order dated 11.08.2021

has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist

no. 1 is the deserted wife of the opposite party no.2, who had

initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to

direct the opposite party no.2 to grant Rs. 30,000/- per month as

maintenance for herself and Rs. 15,000/- per month for her

minor daughter, which was exparte allowed by the learned

Family Court vide Judgement and order dated 11.08.2021,

whereby the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.

20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- per month to the revisionist nos.1 and

2 from the date of filing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

i.e. 31.10.2018. He further submits that thereafter, the opposite

party no.2 filed an application dated 21.09.2021 under Section

126 (2) Cr.P.C., for recalling the exparte Judgement and order

dated 11.08.2021 in which objection was filed by the

revisionists but the learned Court below without considering the

objection filed by the revisionist has allowed the recall

application filed by the opposite party no.2 vide order dated

01.08.2022. Learned counsel further submits that the since

31.10.2018, the revisionists, who are pauper persons having no

source of income to maintain themself and due to delaying

tactics adopted by the opposite party no.2, the revisionists have

not been paid any maintenance amount. He next submits that

when the exparte Judgement and order dated 11.08.2021 was

passed, the opposite party no.2 within a short span of time had

filed a recall application and it appears that the opposite party

no.2 was watching the matter and when he came to know that

warrant may be issued against him, he immediately filed a

recall application for recalling the exparte Judgement and order

and 11.08.2021 and the learned Family Court without

considering the factual and legal aspect of the matter allowed

the same vide order dated 01.08.2022, thus the impugned order

is illegal and is liable to be set aside by this Court.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that

the Judgement and order dated 11.08.2021 was exparte without

hearing the opposite party no.2, thus the learned Family Court

has rightly passed the order impugned, which calls for no

interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under

revisional jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is

refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that

suitable direction may be issued to the concerned Court below

to consider and decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

within stipulated time as deem fit and proper by this Court.

Considering the fact that the revisionists have not been paid

even a single penny and therefore, the concerned Family Court

is directed to consider and decide the 125 Cr.P.C. application

filed by the revisionist in accordance with law, as expeditiously

as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long

adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period

of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of

this order befo