Kuldeep Pawar @ Neetu vs State of U.P. and Others

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for (he petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

There is no need to issue notice to opposite party No. 2.

Order dated 14.5.2010. passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2010, Kuldeep v. Poonam and Another, is under challenge in the instant revision.

Opposite party No. 2 filed an application u/s 125, Cr. P.C. wherein orders for payment of interim maintenance allowance at the rate of ( Rs. ) 1,700 per month was passed on 17.1.2009. Certified copy of the order was obtained by the petitioner on 23.1.2009, but surprisingly revision was filed before the Sessions Judge on 10.2.2010, which was time barred and ultimately the revision was dismissed as time barred. Hence, this revision.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the revision was caused as the counsel of the petitioner did not advise him that a revision could be filed against the impugned order.

The aforesaid explanation for delay is not convincing at all. If the counsel did not advise for filing a revision, why certified copy of the order passed by the Magistrate was obtained by the petitioner on 23.1.2009, is not clear. From the impugned order, it is also apparent that in the meantime the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 1616 of 2009 in the High Court, which was dismissed on 21.4.2009. After dismissal of the revision by this Court, the same order could not have been challenged before the Sessions Judge by filing another revision. Even in this writ petition, the fact about filing of aforesaid criminal revision before this Court has been concealed and amounts to fraud on the Court.

In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with ( Rs. ) 3,000 as cost. The cost shall be deposited with Registrar General of this Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the Registrar General shall take initiative to recover the said amount.