SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J
Abhishek Gond – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2099 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava
For the Respondents: G.A., Kusum Mishra, Richa Srivastav, Seema Kushwaha

A criminal revision against an ex-parte maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable before the High Court when a specific statutory remedy to file an application for setting aside the ex-parte order under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. is available before the trial court.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125, 126(2) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Maintenance - Ex parte order - Revision against ex parte order in maintenance case - Maintainability - Writ seeking revision dismissed due to availability of efficacious alternative remedy before the trial court under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall ex parte order.

Facts of the case:
The revisionist challenged an ex parte maintenance order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria, wherein he was directed to pay maintenance to his wife and two children. The revisionist argued regarding his income and maintenance obligations, contending that he had not been correctly assessed, and sought relief directly from the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that an ex parte order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a specific statutory remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for the aggrieved party to approach the trial court to recall the order upon showing sufficient cause. The Court held that the constitutional/revisional jurisdiction should not be invoked bypassing this statutory alternative remedy.

Issues: Whether a criminal revision is maintainable in the High Court against an ex parte order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when a statutory remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. is available before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: When a specific statutory remedy is provided under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge an ex parte maintenance order before the trial court, the party must exhaust that remedy before approaching the High Court in revision, as the trial court is vested with the jurisdiction to recall its own ex parte order.

Result: Revision dismissed.

1. Heard Sri Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Richa Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the ex parte judgement and order dated 13.05.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 1388 of 2023 (Baby Devi and others Vs. Abhishek Gond), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Khampar, District Deoria whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 144 B.N.S.S.) and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) towards her maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 each till attaining the age of majority from the date of application i.e. 22.09.2023.

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself; or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself; or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:

Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter, -

(a)"minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority,

(b)"wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married.

(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.

(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top