Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3580 of 2018 Revisionist :- Mohd Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.5.2016 passed by the Principal Judge/Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.26/11 of 2013 (Sitara Khatoon and another vs. Mohd. Arif), u/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the wife and Rs.1000/- to the minor daughter per month as interim maintenance from the date of order and impugned order dated 13.7.2018 whereby the application for recall of order dated 30.5.2016 has been rejected and the revisionist has been directed to pay the balance amount within six months in six installments.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist.
Submissions made by the counsel for revisionist primarily revolve around the inadequacy of opportunity, which according to him, was awarded to the revisionist and as the impugned order has been passed ex-parte, therefore, according to the counsel, it has gone to adversely effect the valuable rights of the revisionist to defend himself. Counsel has tried to show that there was no deliberate attempt of avoiding the proceedings and many impelling circumstances were there including the death of his father which prevented the revisionist to contest the case in right earnest and that has eventually resulted in the ex-parte decision of the case. Submission is that in such a situation the order passed by the court below is in violation of the first principles of natural justice and it will go to defeat the inherent rights and ultimately axe will fall on the objective concept of the justice which does not contemplate an unequal treatment to any citizen.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Impugned order reflects judicial application of mind. Elaborate reasons have been shown in the order which persuaded the court below to pass the impugned order, which it did. This Court does not see any such element of perversity in the same that may persuade this Court to straightaway interfere in the impugned orders. However, as the fact remains unassailed that the initial order had been passed ex-parte and the attempt to get it recalled also has failed, this Court feels that the totality of the facts and circumstances are such that in order to meed the ends of justice a relook requires to be given by the court below to the order impugned, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the revisionist herein.
This order is being passed by this Court in order to meet the ends of justice in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as this Court is, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, of the view that it would be better to decide the matter on merits after providing opportunity to both the parties rather than proceeding ex-parte. This Court, therefore, remands back the case to the court below and the court below is required to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders thereafter, as it may deem fit in the light of the observations made by this Court.
Meanwhile it is being clarified that till the decision of the court concerned on the application moved u/s 126(2) of Cr.P.C., which now it is supposed to pass after reconsidering the matter, the revisionist shall continue to pay monthly amount of maintenance to the wife and the child, as was ordered by the court below without fail.
So far as the arrears amount is concerned, payment of the same shall remain in abeyance till the fresh decision is arrived at by the court below after providing opportunity of hearing to revisionist as directed.
This interim stay order on the arrears amount shall abide by the terms in which the court below may decide the matter after reconsidering the same as it has been directed.
With the aforesaid observations the revision stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 M. Kumar