Allahabad High Court
SMT. RESHAM PYARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VINOD DIWAKAR
Holding
The revision stands disposed of as the grievance has been addressed by the fresh order of the Family Court.
Summary
Smt. Resham Pyari filed a criminal revision challenging an order of the Family Court, Bareilly, relating to an application under Section 144 of the BNSS Act. The High Court had earlier set aside the impugned order dated 10‑Nov‑2025 and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, directing compliance with Supreme Court precedents. The Family Court failed to file a compliance report and later passed an ex‑parte order on 10‑Feb‑2026, which was not placed on record. The High Court observed that a fresh order had already been issued, thereby addressing the grievance, and consequently disposed of the revision. The Court further directed that any further aggrievement could be pursued by filing a fresh petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the revision petition is maintainable when a fresh order has been passed by the Family Court.
- Whether the failure to produce the ex‑parte order on record defeats the revision.
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 144
Subjects
- revision
- family court
- ex‑parte order
- compliance
- Section 144
- judicial directions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8860 of 2025
Smt. Resham Pyari
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Darwari Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. On 21st January, 2026, this Court had set aside the impugned order dated
10.11.2025 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court-III, District Bareilly to decide the application
under Section 144 BNSS afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due
opportunity of hearing to both the parties and keeping in mind the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324,
and Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451 as
well as by this Court in Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi (2023) SCC OnLine
All 2684. Thereafter, the matter was directed to be listed on 11th February,
2026, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the order dated 21st
January, 2026.
2. However, neither the said order was complied with nor any compliance
report was submitted before this Court. Consequently, vide order dated 11th
February, 2026, this Court, in the interest of justice and to uphold the
authority of its judicial directions, granted a further opportunity to the
learned Court concerned to strictly comply with the directions contained in
the earlier order dated 21st January, 2026.
3. Pursuant thereto, a report has been submitted by the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court-III, District Bareilly. The report indicates that
on 7th February, 2026, after hearing the revisionist, the matter was
proceeded with and an ex-parte order was subsequently passed on 10th
February, 2026. However, a copy of the order dated 10th February, 2026 has
neither been placed on record by the learned counsel for the revisionist nor
forwarded along with the report by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court-III, Bareilly.
CRLR No. 8860 of 2025
2
4. In view of the fact that a fresh order has already been passed by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Bareilly, the grievance
raised in the present revision appears to have been addressed.
5. Accordingly, the revision stands disposed of.
6. It is, however, provided that in the event the revisionist is still aggrieved,
it shall be open to him to avail appropriate legal remedy by filing a fresh
petition in accordance with law.
February 24, 2026
Shafique
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SAFIKUR RAHAMAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…