Allahabad High Court
VIMAL BAHADUR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The criminal revision is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall of the ex‑parte order under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. or Section 145(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
Vimal Bahadur Singh filed a criminal revision challenging an ex‑parte maintenance order of Rs 10,000 per month awarded to Swati Singh, arguing the amount was excessive. The State argued that the appropriate remedy was an application under Section 126(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section 145(2) of the B.N.S.S. to recall the order, citing earlier decisions of the same court. The revisionist sought to withdraw the revision and pursue the statutory remedy. The Court held that the revision could be dismissed as withdrawn and granted liberty to move the appropriate application under the cited provisions. Consequently, the ex‑parte order remains in force pending any recall application.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal revision is maintainable against an ex‑parte maintenance order when a specific statutory remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./Section 145(2) B.N.S.S. is available.
- Whether the revisionist may withdraw the revision and pursue the alternative remedy.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 145(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 126(2)
Subjects
- maintenance
- ex‑parte order
- criminal revision
- Section 126 CrPC
- Section 145 B.N.S.S.
- procedural remedy
- withdrawal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4707 of 2026
Vimal Bahadur Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amresh Bahadur Tiwari, Vikas Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Bhushan Tiwari, G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
1. Heard Sri Amresh Bahadur Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Chandra Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present criminal
revision has been filed seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer clause. The
prayer clause is delineated below:-
" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to allow the present criminal revision and set aside the ex-parte
impugned judgement and order dated 13/07/2026 passed by Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Court, no.4, Prayagraj in maintenance
case no. 1147/2023 (Swati Singh vs. Vimal Bahadur Singh), Passed under
section 144 B.N.S.S., 2023 Police station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj,
whereby Rs.10,000 has been awarded maintenance to be paid to the
opposite party no.2 from the revisionist each month.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the
effect and operation of the ex-parte Impugned judgement and order dated
13/07/2026 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court
no.4, Prayagraj in maintenance case no. 1147/2023 (Swati Singh vs.
Vimal Bahadur Singh), Passed under section 144 B.N.S.S., 2023 Police
station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, whereby Rs.10,000 has been awarded
maintenance to be paid to the opposite party no.2 from the revisionist
each month."
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present criminal
revision has been preferred against the ex parte order of maintenance dated
13.07.2026 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court,
no.4, Prayagraj in maintenance case no. 1147/2023 (Swati Singh vs. Vimal
Bahadur Singh), awarding maintenance of Rs. 10,000 /- to be paid by the
revisionist to the opposite party No.2. It is submitted that the amount of
maintenance is exorbitant and is not commensurate with the income of the
CRLR No. 4707 of 2026
2
revisionist.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that an efficacious statutory remedy is
available to the revisionist under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./Section 145(2)
B.N.S.S. by filing an application before the learned trial court for recalling
the ex parte order. It is, therefore, submitted that the present revision is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an
alternative statutory remedy.
5. Learned A.G.A. further submits that this Court has already considered this
issue in its order dated 30.03.2026 passed in Criminal Revision Defective
No. 141 of 2026 (Anup Kumar vs. Smt. Pratibha Kushwaha). He further
submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2099
of 2026 (Abhishek Gond Vs. State of U.P. and others) vide order dated
01.04.2026 has also held that against an ex parte order passed in proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the appropriate remedy available to the
revisionist is to move an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. seeking
recall of the said order before the court concerned.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist
seeks permission to withdraw the present revision with liberty to avail the
remedy available under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./Section 145(2) B.N.S.S. by
moving an appropriate application before the learned trial court for recall of
the ex parte order.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to the revisionist to move an appropriate application under Section
126(2) Cr.P.C./Section 145(2) B.N.S.S. before the competent court for recall
of the ex parte order.
September 11, 2026
SFH
(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHIM HUSAIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…