Uttarakhand High Court
24 April vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:3103
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 138 of 2019
24 April, 2026
Gaurav Jain
--Revisionist
Versus
1: State of Uttarakhand
2: Smt. Priyanka Jain
3: Km. Sunakshi
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. Zeba Naaz, learned Counsel i/b Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
1) The present criminal revision, preferred under
Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has
been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated
15.12.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Haridwar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 96 of 2017, titled
“Gaurav Jain vs. Smt. Priyanka Jain & Anr.“, under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., whereby the application of the
revisionist seeking recall of the ex-parte order has been
dismissed.
2) The facts of the case are that the revisionist, Gaurav
Jain, is the husband of respondent no. 2, Smt. Priyanka
Jain, and father of respondent no. 3, a minor child.
Disputes arose between the parties, following which
respondent no. 2 began residing separately with the
minor child. Matrimonial proceedings were initiated
before the Family Court at Saharanpur, U.P., including a
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and
1
2026:UHC:3103
an application under Section 24 thereof, wherein the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, vide
order dated 09.10.2017, directed the revisionist to pay
Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor
child and the said proceedings have since culminated in
a decree of divorce dated 12.10.2018. In the meantime,
respondent no. 2 instituted proceedings under Section
125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Haridwar, being
Criminal Case No. 115 of 2016, wherein the revisionist
was proceeded ex-parte and an order dated 07.07.2017
directing payment of maintenance to the tune of
Rs.5,000/- was passed in respect of respondent no.3
herein (minor daughter). Upon gaining knowledge of the
said order, the revisionist filed an application under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on 06.10.2017 for recall of the ex-
parte order, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case
No. 96 of 2017 and subsequently dismissed by the
learned Family Court, Haridwar vide impugned order
dated 15.12.2018, leading to the present revision.
3) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the
impugned order dated 15.12.2018 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Haridwar is illegal, arbitrary, and
liable to be set aside, as the same has been passed
without proper appreciation of the material on record. It
is contended that the ex-parte order dated 07.07.2017
was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as
the revisionist was never duly served with notice of the
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and had no
knowledge thereof. It is further submitted that the
learned Family Court failed to properly examine the issue
of service while rejecting the application under Section
126(2) Cr.P.C., despite the revisionist having shown
2
2026:UHC:3103
sufficient cause for his non-appearance, including the
nature of his employment with the Central Bank of India.
4) It is further argued that the learned court below has
ignored relevant material pertaining to the financial
status of respondent no. 2, who, according to the
revisionist, is gainfully employed and earning sufficient
income. It is also contended that the learned Family
Court failed to consider that maintenance in favour of the
minor child had already been awarded by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, U.P., and the
continuation of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
has resulted in duplication of maintenance liability. On
these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order
deserves to be set aside and the ex-parte order dated
07.07.2017 be recalled.
5) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
(wife and minor daughter) submits that the impugned
order passed by the learned Family Court does not suffer
from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in
revisional jurisdiction. It is contended that due process
was duly followed and sufficient opportunity was afforded
to the revisionist; however, despite service of notice, he
failed to appear, resulting in the ex-parte order dated
07.07.2017. It is further submitted that the plea of non-
service and lack of knowledge is an afterthought, rightly
rejected by the court below while dismissing the
application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. It is also argued
that there is no duplication of the maintenance granted
in favour of the minor child as Rs.5,000/- was granted to
her and her minor child during pendency of the divorce
suit which was only a maintenance pendente lite.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order calls
for no interference.
3
2026:UHC:3103
6) Having heard the submissions advanced by learned
counsels and perused the material available on record. It
is well settled that revisional jurisdiction under Sections
397/401 Cr.P.C. is limited and can be exercised only in
cases of manifest illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional
error, and not for re-appreciation of evidence. In the
present case, the contention of the revisionist regarding
non-service of notice and lack of knowledge of the
proceedings has been duly considered and rejected by the
learned Family Court, which recorded a finding that
sufficient opportunity had been afforded. Such a finding
of fact does not warrant interference in revisional
jurisdiction, particularly when no material has been
brought on record to establish any illegality or perversity
in the impugned order. The submission regarding
maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Saharanpur
also does not, by itself, render the proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. unsustainable so as to justify
interference as that was maintenance pendete lite only
which came to an end with final decision of the divorce
suit on 12.10.2018 when suit was decreed.
7) This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order dated 15.12.2018 warranting
interference.
8) Accordingly, the present criminal revision lacks
merit and is hereby dismissed. Impugned order dated
15.12.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Haridwar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 96 of 2017 is hereby
affirmed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
24.04.2026
Rdang
4
