Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2807 of 2018 Revisionist :- Abbas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Singh,Sudhanshu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Indrajeet Singh, learned AGA for the State.
The revisionist is the husband and O.P. No.2 is the wife.
By an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 08.02.2006 in Case No. 546 of 2005 (Saziya vs. Abbas) by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, the revisionist has been ordered to pay from the date of application a sum of Rs. 1500/- to the wife and Rs. 1500/- each to one son and a daughter, and, Rs. 1,000/- to one son, aggregating a sum of Rs. 5500/- per month.
Some kind of objection to the aforesaid maintenance order dated 08.02.2006 has come to be rejected by an order dated 26.03.2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat, against which the present revision has been filed. It appears that the revisionist's application to set aside the ex parte maintenance order dated 08.02.2006 was allowed vide order dated 13.09.2006 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on payment of Rs. 2000/- as cost and the case was restored on its original file and number. Subsequently, by an order dated 21.02.2008 again in the absence of husband the maintenance case was decided ex parte awarding as above noted a sum of Rs. 5500/- per month in aggregate to the wife and parties' minor children. Against the order dated 21.02.2008 the revisionist approached this Court in revision being Criminal Revision No. 524 of 2010 that has come to be rejected by this Court.
The revisionist has now moved an application invoking some mysterious jurisdiction of the Court, and, in some way, making a preposterous move by seeking to set aside the order of maintenance under Section 151 C.P.C. The learned Family Judge has rejected the application by means of impugned order dated 27.07.2018 holding that the application under Section 151 C.P.C. is not at all maintainable. Indeed, the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply to proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Judge has also opined that the order of maintenance has attained finality as there is absolutely no scope to recall the said order on any kind of a motion that may be dealt with as a motion to set aside the ex parte order. This Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge while passing the order impugned.
In the result, this revision fails and is dismissed in limine.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the Family Court concerned.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Imroz