Court No. - 34 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3463 of 2008 Petitioner :- Kaushlendra Pratap Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Mohit Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Mohd Arif Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Mohit Singh learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for respondent no. 1 and
Sri Mohd. Arif for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on this revision.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 5.11.08 passed by Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court Allahabad in case no. 604 of 2006, Amarnath Jaiswal and another Vs. Kaushlendra
Pratap Jaiswal, whereunder application 15-kh and 16-ka moved on behalf of the revisionist have
been dismissed.
It transpires from the record that an application no. 604 of 2006 was moved by respondent nos. 2
and 3 against the revisionist under section 125 Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance allowance and
revisionist submitted written statement in the court below but due to his illness he could not
appear on the dates fixed and thus application moved under section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeded ex-
parte against the revisionist. The applicant then moved the said applications 15-kha and 16-kha
for setting aside the ex parte orders and permitting him to participate in the proceedings but the
said applications were also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that learned court below observed in its order that
in the exemption application dated 4.1.08 it was not mentioned that revisionist was suffering
from viral fever whereas in the medical certificate filed along with this application dated 17.1.08
disease acute ‘diarrhea’ was mentioned and thus there was sufficient reason for absence of the
revisionist on that date fixed in the court below and the court below should have allowed those
applications because there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte order, but court
below closed evidence of revisionist without considering serious consequences of the order.
Considering the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist an opportunity should have
been afforded to the revisionist for producing the evidence and defending himself in the said case
in the interest of justice.
Consequently, this revision deserves to be allowed and impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Revision is allowed and order dated 5.11.08 passed by court below in case no. 604 of 2006 is set
aside.
The trial court is directed to permit the revisionist to participate in the proceedings of above case
no. 604 of 2006 and afford an opportunity to revisionist for producing his evidence and defending
himself in the said case.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
Gss