Allahabad High Court
MOHD USMANversusState of UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GARIMA PRASHAD
Holding
The High Court remanded the case back to the trial court to reconsider the Section 125 CrPC application afresh, while directing continuation of the maintenance payments.
Summary
Mohd Usman (revisionist) filed a criminal revision under Section 126(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, which upheld a Section 125 CrPC maintenance order directing him to pay Rs.20,000 per month to the opposite party No.2. The revisionist argued that he had deposited the full arrears of Rs.11,60,000 and that his written submission filed on 9 November 2021 was not considered, warranting a fresh adjudication. The opposite party No.2 consented to a remand provided the maintenance payments continued. The High Court ordered the matter to be remanded to the trial court to reconsider the Section 125 application afresh, directing the revisionist to continue paying Rs.20,000 per month until a fresh order is passed, and disposed of the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should set aside the order of the Family Court rejecting the revisionist's application under Section 126(2) CrPC.
- Whether the revisionist's written submission and deposit of arrears warrant a fresh consideration of the Section 125 CrPC maintenance application.
- Whether the matter should be remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 126(2)
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- Section 126 CrPC
- revision
- Family Court
- arrears
- remand
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 221 of 2024
Mohd Usman
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mukesh Joshi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Lalit Kumar Ojha, Pawan Kumar
Shukla
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State
and Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party
No.2.
2. By means of the present revision, the revisionist is challenging the
order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Moradabad under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. rejecting his
application and upholding the order dated 11.01.2022 whereby the
application filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has
been allowed directing the revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/-
per month to the opposite party No.2 from the date of application i.e.
26.2.2020.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that
revisionist had filed his written submission on 9.11.2021 and that by order
dated 19.9.2022, he has been permitted to deposit the entire arrears.
Accordingly, the revisionist had deposited the entire arrears of
Rs.11,60,000/- as on 20.3.2025 which has been recorded by the trial court
in its order of the same date. It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the revisionist that inspite of depositing entire arrears, the written
submission of the revisionist was not considered and the application filed
by him under Section 126 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. He prayed that the
matter may be remanded back for fresh adjudication.
CRLR No. 221 of 2024
2
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that he has
no objection if the case is remanded back to the court concerned to be
adjudicated afresh if the revisionist continues to pay Rs.20,000/- per
month to the opposite party No.2 till the matter is decided afresh by the
trial court.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist on instructions submits that the
revisionist will continue to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by
the trial court in the ex parte proceeding.
6. In view of the aforesaid the matter is remanded back to the trial court
to consider the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh after duly
considering the written submission filed by the revisionist. The further
proceedings to be adjudicated on merits and a fresh order by passed by
the trial court expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from
the date of production of certified copy of this order.
7. The revision is disposed of accordingly.
8. It is made clear that the revisionist shall continue to pay the amount of
Rs.20,000/- per month till the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
decided afresh. In the event the revisionist does not deposit the said
amount, the same can be recovered in execution proceedings.
(Garima Prashad,J.)
April 20, 2026
Kuldeep
Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…