Allahabad High Court
SACHIN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA
Holding
The revision lacks merit as the appellant failed to provide evidence for his claimed injury, and the trial court’s rejection of the Section 5 application is upheld.
Summary
Sachin Kumar appealed to the Allahabad High Court by filing a criminal revision against the Family Court’s order rejecting his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. His wife had obtained a maintenance decree under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. after the husband failed to appear, leading to an ex‑parte order. Kumar claimed he was unable to attend because he was injured in a building collapse while seeking work outside the state, but he offered no medical or documentary proof. The trial court, finding no evidence of injury, dismissed his limitation defence. The High Court held that the revisionist had not satisfied the evidentiary burden and that the trial court’s decision was justified, consequently dismissing the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the absence of documentary or medical evidence of injury.
- Whether an ex‑parte maintenance order can be recalled on the ground of the appellant’s alleged injury without supporting proof.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Limitation Act Section 5
- ex parte order
- recall application
- evidentiary burden
- criminal revision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3066 of 2025
Sachin Kumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bharat Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Revisionist Sachin Kumar has approached this Court by means of
present Criminal Revision challenging the validity of the impugned order
dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun
(hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No.
1193 of 2023, Sachin Kumar v. Smt. Sangeeta, whereby the Trial Court
rejected the application moved by the revisionist under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are the wife
and minor son, respectively, of the revisionist. Opposite party no. 2
instituted proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before
the Trial Court whereupon notice was issued to the revisionist. The
revisionist appeared before the Trial Court on certain dates, however, later
on, he remained absent from the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial
Court proceeded ex parte and decided the case vide order dated
02.05.2023. Thereafter, against said ex-parte order, the revisionist filed a
recall application before the Trial Court along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, contending that he had gone outside the
State in search of livelihood and, during the course of his labour work, the
roof of an under-construction building collapsed on his head, causing
injuries to him. However, no documentary or medical evidence was
produced by the revisionist in support of the alleged injuries. In the
absence of such documentary or medical evidence, the Trial Court
disbelieved the grounds assigned for his non-appearance before the Court
CRLR No. 3066 of 2025
2
and rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist reiterating the above factual
positions submits that the revisionist is a labourer and had gone outside
the State in search of livelihood where during the course of work he
sustained injuries in an accident. Therefore, he could not attend the
proceedings before the Trial Court. As soon as he regained his health, he
came to know about the impugned order and approached the Trial Court
seeking recall of the ex-parte order. But without considering the above
circumstances, the Trial Court rejected the revisionist's application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is, therefore, contended that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court.
4. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the revision. It is
submitted that the revisionist has not come forward with a satisfactory
explanation for not attending the Trial Court for a long time. Therefore,
the instant revision is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
5. When confronted with the above, the learned counsel for the revisionist
could not overcome the same.
6. In view of above, the Court is of opinion that the submissions urged by
the learned A.G.A. is clearly borne out from the record. The present
revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
May 6, 2026
Brijesh Maurya
Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…