ARJUN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8684 of 2025

Arjun Kumar
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)           :   Gaurav Tiwari, Ramesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :   G.A.

Court No. - 87
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Nitika, appearing in person for opposite
party no. 2.

2. The revisionist has approached this Court by means of the present
revision challenging the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as the
“Trial Court”) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 531 of 2024 (Smt. Nikita v.
Arjun Kumar) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary and has
been passed in an illegal and erroneous manner. It is further submitted
that the impugned order has been passed without adopting a judicious
approach. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for setting aside the
impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite party no. 2
had filed a petition seeking maintenance, which was allowed ex parte.
The revisionist had no knowledge of the said proceedings and, therefore,
had no opportunity to defend himself. Although the said order has
attained finality, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section
144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the “B.N.S.S.”) for realization of the arrears of maintenance.
By order dated 16.08.2024, the Trial Court entertained the said
application and issued notice to the revisionist. Thereafter, by the
impugned order dated 10.01.2025, the Trial Court issued a recovery
warrant against the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist is
                                                       CRLR No. 8684 of 2025
                               2


ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount sought to be recovered, so
as to demonstrate his bona fides. The remaining amount may also be
permitted to be realized from him in installments. In view of the above, it
is submitted that the recovery warrant issued against the revisionist is
liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party no. 2, appearing in
person, vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. The attention
of the Court was drawn to the order dated 19.08.2026 passed by this
Court. By the said order, this Court had noticed that, as per the
compliance affidavit filed by the Sub-Registrar, Bareilly, in compliance
with the earlier order of this Court dated 13.08.2026, the revisionist had
disposed of certain properties through registered deeds, including two gift
deeds and three sale deeds. This Court had further observed that execution
of the aforesaid deeds appeared to have been made with a view to
frustrating the recovery of the maintenance amount. It is, therefore,
contended that the conduct of the revisionist demonstrates that he is
acting mala fide in the matter and that the oral assertion of bona fides
made before this Court cannot be accepted in view of his subsequent
conduct.

5. When confronted with the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for
the revisionist could not satisfactorily overcome the same.

6. Having heard the rival submissions and having considered the conduct
of the revisionist, particularly the execution of two gift deeds and three
sale deeds in favour of third parties, this Court finds substance in the
apprehension expressed by opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist is
attempting to frustrate the recovery of the maintenance amount. In these
circumstances, merely on the basis of an oral statement expressing
willingness to deposit 50% of the amount, no equitable relief can be
granted to the revisionist. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, whereby the Trial
Court has issued a recovery warrant against the revisionist. So far as the
order dated 16.08.2024 is concerned, the same merely directs issuance of
notice to the revisionist in the proceedings. It is trite law that an order
issuing notice/summoning a person, not being a final order, ordinarily
cannot be challenged by way of revision.
                                                                                           CRLR No. 8684 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present criminal revision lacks
                                    merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.


                                                                                   (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Brijesh Maurya




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad