Court Directs Revisionist to Exhaust Available Remedies in Family Court Before Approaching High Court
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Abhishek Gond against an ex-parte maintenance order issued by the Family Court, Deoria. The order, dated May 13, 2024, required Gond to pay monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and children under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, now corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The revision petition sought to challenge the family court's order without first availing the statutory remedy available under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C., now Section 145(2) B.N.S.S., which allows for the setting aside of ex-parte orders upon showing sufficient cause. Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, presiding over the case, emphasized that the revisionist must first approach the family court to seek relief before the matter can be escalated to the High Court.
During the proceedings, Gond's counsel argued that the family court had incorrectly assessed his income, claiming he earned considerably less than alleged by his wife, and that he had additional responsibilities, such as caring for his ailing mother. However, the counsel for the opposite party countered that the wife and children had no source of income and were living separately due to the husband's misconduct, which justified the ex-parte order.
The High Court noted that the revisionist had failed to appear before the family court despite due notice, leading to the ex-parte decision. It reiterated that the appropriate procedure for challenging such orders is through the statutory remedy provided at the trial court level, as outlined in Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. (Section 145(2) B.N.S.S.).
The court further explained that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction, as per Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, can only be invoked after the trial court has addressed the matter. The court underscored the importance of following procedural hierarchies and exhausting alternative remedies before seeking a revision in higher courts.
In light of these observations, the court dismissed the revision petition on grounds of maintainability, directing Gond to file an appropriate application in the family court to recall the ex-parte order. The court also left open the possibility for Gond to apply for condonation of any delay in approaching the trial court.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on adhering to procedural requirements and utilizing available legal remedies effectively before escalating cases to higher judicial forums.
Bottom Line:
A revision petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 144 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) against an ex-parte maintenance order is not maintainable before the High Court when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 145(2) B.N.S.S.) is available before the trial court.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., Section 144 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 145(2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 19(4) Family Courts Act, 1984
Abhishek Gond v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878044
