Allahabad High Court

SHAMIM AHAMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: PRASHANT BILGAIYAN REGISTRAR CRIMINAL

Holding

The revision is not maintainable as the appropriate remedy is an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S., and therefore the revision is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners filed a criminal revision, 18 days after the prescribed period, seeking to set aside an ex‑parte order dated 16‑05‑2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. The Court first condoned the delay in filing the revision upon satisfactory explanation. The petitioners argued that the ex‑parte order could be recalled by filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. or Section 145(2) B.N.S.S. and expressed no intention to contest the merits in the revision. The learned A.G.A. submitted that the appropriate remedy is indeed the application under the said provisions and that the revision is therefore not maintainable. Relying on earlier decisions of this Court, the bench held that when an alternative efficacious remedy exists, a criminal revision cannot be entertained. Consequently, the revision was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

Issues considered

Whether the 18‑day delay in filing the criminal revision can be condoned.
Whether a criminal revision is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. is available to set aside the ex‑parte order.
Whether the ex‑parte order under Section 144 B.N.S.S. can be challenged directly through a criminal revision.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 144, 145(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 126(2)

Subjects

criminal revision
ex‑parte order
maintenance
Section 126(2) CrPC
Section 145(2) B.N.S.S.
delay condonation
maintainability
family court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1828 of 2026

Shamim Ahamad
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Tahir Husain Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he has preferred the
present revision along with delay condonation application.

2. The instant revision is reported to be beyond time by 18 days.

3. Cause shown for delay in the affidavit supporting delay condonation
application has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.

4. The delay condonation application is allowed.

5. Delay in filing this revision is hereby condoned.

Ref: Order on Criminal Revision

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he has preferred the
instant criminal revision with the relief which has been mentioned in the
prayer clause of the revision.

7. The relief which has been mentioned in the revision is delineated
below:-

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to allow the present Criminal Revision and set
aside the ex-parte judgement and order dated 16.05.2026 passed by
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Bareilly in
CRLRD No. 1828 of 2026
2

Criminal Misc. Case no. 1739 of 2024 (Smt. Rawayat Fatma and another
Vs. Shamim Ahmad), under section 144 of B.N.S.S., Police Station
District Bareilly. Visharatganj,"

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that against the ex parte
final order dated 16.05.2026 passed under Section 144 of B.N.S.S., the
present revision has been preferred.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that by the ex parte
order, the application filed under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. was finally
allowed. He further submits that there is a provision for filing an
application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for recalling the
ex parte maintenance order. Learned counsel for the revisionist further
submits that he does not want to press this case on merit and he shall raise
all the grievances by filing an application under Section 126(2)
Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. before the trial court.

10. Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. assisted the Court and
submitted that there is a provision under Section 126(2)
Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for filing an application for recalling the ex parte
order and the same can be availed before the trial court, therefore, the
revision is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. For
ready reference Section 126 Cr.P.C. is being delineated below :-

"126. Procedure.

(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in
any district-

(a) where he is, or

(b) where he or his wife resides, or

(2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the
person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to
be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the
CRLRD No. 1828 of 2026
3

presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed
for summons-cases:

Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom
an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully
avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the
Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any
order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application
made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms
including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the
Magistrate may think just and proper.

(3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have
power to make such order as to costs as may be just."

11. Learned A.G.A. further submits that this aspect has already been
decided by this Court in Criminal Revision Defective No.141 of 2026
(Anup Kumar Vs. Smt. Pratibha Kushwaha and others) vide order
dated 30.03.2026 and 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 as per Section
126(2) Cr.P.C., against an ex parte order passed in an application for
maintenance, the remedy available to the revisionist is to move an
application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the concerned family
court.

12. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed at this stage on the ground of
maintainability as there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available
under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for filing an application
before the trial court and the revisionist is at liberty to avail the said
remedy, if so advised.

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
September 14, 2026
K.Tiwari

Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…