RAM NAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2000-5-106
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 23,2000

RAM NAYAN SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 25-2-1999 whereby the application for setting aside ex-parte, judgment was rejected. Smt. Neelam respondent No. 2 has filed petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE opposite party claimed main tenance from her husband, the revisionist appeared in the said proceedings and filed written statement. THEreafter, he failed to appear and case proceeded ex-parte, and was decided ex-pone, against which the application under Section 126 (2), Cr. P. C. was rejected. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist before me is that when the opposite party failed to ap pear in the Court, it was incumbent upon the Court to hold that he was intentionally avoiding appearance before the Court. I do not agree with this contention. When the written statement was filed by the op posite party, the opposite party must be knowing each date fixed in the case. If, he does not appear after filing the written statement, it is clear that he had no inten tion to appear before the Court and it was not necessary for the learned lower Court to record the finding when the opposite party did not appear. That opposite party was intentionally avoiding presence in the Court because the same is very clear on the face. It may also be stated that this plea was not taken before the lower Court. Rather, in the lower Court, the revisionist stated that he could not appear before the Court be cause of illness. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that an affidavit was given by the revisionist about illness. There was no counter affidavit and, therefore, there was ;,o reason for the learned lower Court to disbelieve the affidavit of the revisionist. Again, I am not convinced with this contention because the learned lower Court has rightly upheld that the revisionist must have filed Medical Certificate in sup port of his contention. The learned lower Court, therefore, committed no illegality in rejecting the said application under Section 126 (2), Cr. P. C. The revision is hereby dis missed. Revision dismissed. .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.