VIMLESH KUMAR SAVITA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is 70% disabled and he is not able to walk. It is next contended that the petitioner is residing at Unnao, whereas proceedings of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are going on before the Principal Judge/Family Court, Faizabad, which is 239 kilometers away from his residence. On account of his disability and the far distance from the place of trial to the place of his residence, he gave an application for exempting his personal appearance before the learned court below which has been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to appear for mediation, however, for the other purposes, such as for recording evidence etc., he may be permitted to appear through counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3625 "M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and other". The relevant paragraph No. 17 and 19 are reproduced as under:-