CRLR/3066/2025 of SACHIN KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3066 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Revisionist Sachin Kumar has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1193 of 2023, Sachin Kumar v. Smt. Sangeeta, whereby the Trial Court rejected the application moved by the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.   2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are the wife and minor son, respectively, of the revisionist. Opposite party no. 2 instituted proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court whereupon notice was issued to the revisionist. The revisionist appeared before the Trial Court on certain dates, however, later on, he remained absent from the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court proceeded ex parte and decided the case vide order dated 02.05.2023. Thereafter, against said ex-parte order, the revisionist filed a recall application before the Trial Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, contending that he had gone outside the State in search of livelihood and, during the course of his labour work, the roof of an under-construction building collapsed on his head, causing injuries to him. However, no documentary or medical evidence was produced by the revisionist in support of the alleged injuries. In the absence of such documentary or medical evidence, the Trial Court disbelieved the grounds assigned for his non-appearance before the Court Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sachin Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) and rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.  3. Learned counsel for the revisionist reiterating the above factual positions submits that the revisionist is a labourer and had gone outside the State in search of livelihood where during the course of work he sustained injuries in an accident. Therefore, he could not attend the proceedings before the Trial Court. As soon as he regained his health, he came to know about the impugned order and approached the Trial Court seeking recall of the ex-parte order. But without considering the above circumstances, the Trial Court rejected the revisionist's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court.   4. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the revision. It is submitted that the revisionist has not come forward with a satisfactory explanation for not attending the Trial Court for a long time. Therefore, the instant revision is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. When confronted with the above, the learned counsel for the revisionist could not overcome the same.   6. In view of above, the Court is of opinion that the submissions urged by the learned A.G.A. is clearly borne out from the record. The present revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.  7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed. May 6, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 3066 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad