SANTOSHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 584 of 2026

Santosh
                                                                .....Revisionist(s)
                                      Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                     :   Rakesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :   Kamlesh Shrama, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Kamlesh Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal
revision has been preferred, along with delay condonation application as
there is delay of 155 days in filing the revision, with the relief which has
been mentioned in the prayer clause. 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 set aside the ex- party judgment and order dated
     09.07.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
     Azamgarh, whereby application Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is partly
     accepted and revisionist is ordered to pay of Rs. Four Thousand only (Rs.
     4000) to Opposite Party No.2, Rs. One Thousand Only (Rs. 1,000) to
     Opposite Party No.3 till the date of his majority, total Rs. five housand
     only (Rs. 5000) per month as maintenance from date of application, in
     Case No.371 of 2021 (Manika Versus Santosh) Under Section 125
     Cr.P.C. Police Station-Bardah, District-Azamgarh.
     It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
     stay the effect and operation of the ex-party judgment and order dated
     09.07.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
     Azamgarh, in the aforesaid Case No.371 of 2021 (Manika Versus
     Santosh) Under Section125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Bardah, District-
                                                           CRLRD No. 584 of 2026
                                 2


     Azamgarh till the pendency of the present Criminal Revision before this
     Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that vide ex parte order
dated 09.07.2025, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Azamgarh has partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the
wife/opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor
son/opposite party no.3, from the date of application i.e. 30.06.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there is
provision for filing a recall application before the concerned trial court,
under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./Section 145(2) B.N.S.S, therefore, an
appropriate application shall be filed before the appropriate forum,
therefore, the present revision may be permitted to withdraw the same
with liberty.

5. 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.

6. Learned A.G.A. further submits that this Court in Criminal Revision
Defective No.141 of 2026 (Anup Kumar Vs. Smt. Pratibha Kushwaha
and others), decided on 30.03.2026, and in Criminal Revision No.2099
of 206 (Abhishek Gond vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on
01.04.2026, has held that where an ex parte order has been passed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., the statutory remedy available to the aggrieved party
is to move an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./Section 145(2)
BNSS before the court concerned.

7. In view of above submission of learned counsel for the revisionist and
also in view of the fact that the reason shown for delay of 155 days in
filing the revision in the supporting affidavit is not found sufficient, the
delay condonation application stands dismissed, and accordingly, this
revision is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on the ground
                                                                                      CRLRD No. 584 of 2026
                                                                3


                                    of alternative remedy 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