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