IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.192 of 2005 Govind Giri … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and another … Respondents Dated: April 23, 2009 Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Crl. Appln. No.120/2005, Govind Giri Vs. Smt. Shashi Prabha, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has dismissed the application of the revisionist for recalling the ex parte judgment and order dated 16.3.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Family Case No.3 of 2004, Shashi Prabha Vs. Govind Giri. 2. I have heard Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Shashi Prabha moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist demanding Rs.5,000/- per month for her maintenance. Since the revisionist did not appear before the court below, hence the case was directed to be proceeded against him ex parte. Thereafter, on 16.3.2005, learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar ex parte allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent no.2 from the date of application by the 10th of each month. The arrears were also directed to be paid in two months. Against that order, the revisionist preferred an application before the court below with a prayer to recall the ex parte judgment and order dated 16.3.2005. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar vide judgment and order dated 7.9.2005 dismissed the said application of the revisionist. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7.9.2005, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has erred by rejecting the application of the revisionist. I do not find any force in this argument. In the present case, the proceedings u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also u/s 125 Cr.P.C. were proceeding simultaneously before the court of Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar. The court below has recorded a finding that in a suit u/s 9 of the Hindi Marriage Act, on 20.9.2004, the revisionist was directed to pay litigation expenses and interim maintenance allowance to respondent no.2. In compliance of that order, the revisionist also paid Rs.1,500/- on 12.10.2004. Thereafter, since 6.11.2004, the revisionist became absent from the court. On 22.12.2004, the revisionist was also absent from the court, hence due to his absence and non-payment of interim maintenance allowance, suit u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. However, the trial was directed to be continued with regard to the application moved u/s 125 Cr.P.C. After that on 16.3.2005, ex parte judgment and order was passed against the revisionist. The revisionist even did not file any application for restoration of the suit u/s 9 of the aforesaid Act. Therefore, the court below rightly came to the conclusion that the revisionist is not interested to pay maintenance and he has filed the said application for recall of the judgment and order dated 16.3.2005 only in order to cause delay. As such, the court below also rightly came to the conclusion that the application moved by the revisionist, which is time barred, does not seem bonafide. Accordingly, the said application was rightly been dismissed by the court below. 5. For the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar. 6. In view of the above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 30.09.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 23, 2009 Rajeev Dang