BHUTTU @ INSAFversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1771 of 2026

Bhuttu @ Insaf
                                                                 .....Revisionist(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                      .....Opposite
                                                                            Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                        :    Raj Karan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                     :    G.A.

Court No. - 86
                 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1. Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal
revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in
the prayer clause, along with delay condonation application as there is
delay of 2812 days in filing this revision. The relief mentioned in the
prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:-

     "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may
     graciously be pleased to summon the record and allow the Revision an
     set-aside/quash the Ex-party order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the
     Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Second Banda in Case No.
     237/IX/2013 (Smt. Shahjahan & 2 others Vs. Bhuttu @ Insaf) under
     section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station-Bisanda, Banda.
     It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
     court concerned to decide the Case No. 1000237/IX/2013 (Smt.
     Shahjahan & 2 others Vs. Bhuttu @ Insaf) under section 125 Cr.P.C. on
     merits after affording of hearing to the revisionist and it is also prayed
     that stay the effect & operation of order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the
     Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Second Banda; during the
     pendency of the present Criminal Revision, and/or to pass such other and
     further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the
     facts and circumstances of the case."
                                                        CRLRD No. 1771 of 2026
                                2


3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that against by the ex parte
impugned order dated 18.09.2018, the revisionist was directed to pay
Rs.2000/- per month to his wife/opposite party no.2 and Rs.1500/- per
month each to both minor children/opposite party nos.3 and 4 as
maintenance amount. He further submits that against the aforesaid ex
parte order, the revisionist has filed an application under Section 126(2)
Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the order and the same was allowed vide order
dated 18.01.2020 recalling the ex parte order dated 18.09.2018 on the cost
of Rs.4000/-. He further submits that out of Rs.4000/-, the revisionist
deposited Rs.1000/- on 17.02.2020 and thereafter again on 05.07.2021
another application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the
revisionist, which has been dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2025 and
details of the earlier application was also mentioned in the order. He
further submits that after passing of order dated 08.09.2025, the
revisionist has preferred this revision challenging the ex parte order dated
18.09.2018.

4. This Court has perused the entire record and finds that the impugned
order dated 18.09.2018 was already recalled by the trial court on cost of
Rs.4000/-. It is an admitted fact that out of said cost of Rs.4000/-, the
revisionist has only deposited Rs.1000/- and Rs.3000/- is yet not
deposited, and thereafter, another application for recalling the order dated
18.09.2018 was filed and the same has been dismissed vide order dated
08.09.2025, whereas, only the ex parte order dated 18.09.2018 has been
challenged by means of this revision.

5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the instant revision is
dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay as well as on the ground of
maintainability as against the impugned ex parte order, application under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. is maintainable and the remedy has already been
availed by the revisionist.

6. Considering the fact that wife and minor children of the revisionist (i.e.
opposite party nos.2 to 4) are yet struggling in the Court, the concerned
trial court is directed to initiate proceedings against the revisionist, if yet
not initiated, for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount as well as
monthly maintenance amount as early as possible by attaching the
                                                                                          CRLRD No. 1771 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    property of the revisionist and in case, the property is found insufficient,
                                    then the revisionist shall be sent to civil prison for 30 days as mandated
                                    by Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The concerned trial court shall also submit
                                    compliance report to this Court through the Registrar (Compliance).

                                    7. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
                                    the concerned trial court for ensuring its strict compliance.



                                                                                     (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Manish Himwan




Digitally signed by :-
MANISH HIMWAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad