# Abhimanu Pandey Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 183
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2130 of 2019
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhimanu-pandey-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45975
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 401/397 ,125application-maintenance-wife
has
no
source of income-she is living separately
due
to
continuous
harassment
and
demand of dowry-Learned trial court
rightly
awarded
the
maintenance
allowance after appreciating each and
every fact.(Para 1 to 17)

B. Apex Court held that the revisional
jurisdiction
should
normally
be
exercised in exceptional cases when
there
is
a
glaring
defect
in
the
proceedings or there is a manifest error
of point of law and consequently there
has been a flagrant miscarriage of
justice. (Para 10,11)

C. The provisions of section 125, Cr.P.C.
is to provide for a social justice falling
within the swim of Articles 15(3) and 39
of the Constitution of India, which have
been enacted to protect the weaker
section of the society like women and
children. It is in the form of secular
safeguard irrespective of personal law of
the parties. The object to compel a man
to perform moral obligations towards
the society in respect of maintaining his
wife,children and old parents so that
they may not face destitution and
become the liability of the society or
may be forced to adopt a life of
vagrancy, immorality and crime for their
subsistence or go astray.(Para 9)

The revision is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

1 All. Abhimanu Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
183
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or the certified copy issued by
the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(v) The computer generated copy
of such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

(vi)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.

20. However, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
court below is directed to make every
possible endeavour to conclude the trial of
the aforesaid case within a period of four
months from today without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.

20. However, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
court below is directed to make every
possible endeavour to conclude the trial of
the aforesaid case within a period of four
months from today without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
----------
(2021)01ILR A183
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2130 of 2019

Abhimanu Pandey ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, Sri Prabhakar Dubey
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Gaurav Chauhan, Sri Sriram
Dhar Dubey

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 401/397 ,125application-maintenance-wife
has
no
source of income-she is living separately
due
to
continuous
harassment
and
demand of dowry-Learned trial court
rightly
awarded
the
maintenance
allowance after appreciating each and
every fact.(Para 1 to 17)

B. Apex Court held that the revisional
jurisdiction
should
normally
be
exercised in exceptional cases when
there
is
a
glaring
defect
in
the
proceedings or there is a manifest error
of point of law and consequently there
has been a flagrant miscarriage of
justice. (Para 10,11)

C. The provisions of section 125, Cr.P.C.
is to provide for a social justice falling
within the swim of Articles 15(3) and 39
of the Constitution of India, which have
been enacted to protect the weaker
section of the society like women and
children. It is in the form of secular
safeguard irrespective of personal law of
the parties. The object to compel a man
to perform moral obligations towards
the society in respect of maintaining his
wife,children and old parents so that
they may not face destitution and
become the liability of the society or
may be forced to adopt a life of
vagrancy, immorality and crime for their
subsistence or go astray.(Para 9)

The revision is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Amur Chand Agrawal Vs Shanti Bose & anr.
(1973) AIR SC 799

2. St. of Ori. Vs Nakula Sahu,(1979) AIR SC 663

3. Akalu Aheer Vs Ramdeo Ram (1973) AIR SC
2145
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. St. of Karnataka Vs Appu Balu Ingele,(1993)
SC CCR 458

5. Pathumma & anr. Vs Muhammad,(1986) AIR
SC 1436

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. This criminal revision has been
filed by the revisionist against the order
dated
14.5.2019
passed
by
learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur
in Criminal Case No. 313 of 2017 (Smt.
Priyanka Pandey Vs. Abhimanu Pandey)
under
section
125
Cr.P.C.,
whereby
application of maintenance of respondent
no. 2 has been allowed and the present
revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.
19,000/- per month from the date of order
to respondent no. 2 as her maintenance on
11th day of each month.

2. The facts and circumstances giving
rise to this revision are that the revisionist
and respondent no. 2, Smt. Priyanka
Pandey, got married on 9.7.2008 according
to Hindu Rites and Rituals and at the time
of said marriage, father of respondent no. 2
has given Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash to the
family of revisionist as dowry. After some
time on 28.4.2012, a baby boy namely,
Abhiraj, born out of the said wedlock. For
certain
reasons,
relationship
between
husband and wife becomes strained and
due to harassment and additional demand
of dowry, revisionist as well as family
member of revisionist left respondent no. 2
at her paternal house. So respondent no. 2
has filed an application under section 125
Cr.P.C. for her maintenance alleging that
revisionist has refused to maintain her.
Learned Family Court after taking evidence
of both the sides, on 14.5.2019 passed an
order in favour of respondent no. 2,
awarding Rs. 19,000/- as maintenance to
the respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved with
the said order, this revision has been filed
by the revisionist against respondent no. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
stated that marriage of revisionist and
respondent no. 2 namely, Smt. Priyanka
Pandey, was solemnized on 9.7.2018
according to Hindu rites and rituals in very
simple manner and there were no demand
of dowry by revisionist or his family
members.
After
marriage,
bidai
of
respondent no. 2 was held in 2010 and after
a short period of living with respondent no.
2, the revisionist came to know that she is
very outrageous, open minded and was not
willing to co-ordinate with family members
of revisionist. Revisionist tried his best to
understand respondent no. 2 but she always
refuses. On 28.4.2012 a baby boy namely,
Abhiraj, born out of the said wedlock, who
was
suffered
from
Cerebral
Palsy
(hereinafter referred as C.P. child). Father
of revisionist died in the year of 2013 and
mother died in the year 2014. The
revisionist, being eldest in the family was
left by his parents with liability of his two
sisters
and
one
brother.
Revisionist
arranged marriage of his sister in which he
spent about Rs. 24,00,000/- (Twenty Four
Lacs) as well as he has taken a loan of Rs.
10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) from a co-operative
society for marriage of her sister, which is
still being paid monthly from salary of
revisionist by means of installments of Rs.
22,880/- per month. Revisionist is a
Development Officer in LIC and his salary
is approximately Rs. 58,000/- in hand per
month. Revisionist is only earning member
of his family and there are liability of his
second sister namely, Km. Nisha Pandey,
and his C.P. child son namely, Abhiraj,
whose treatment is going on in Apolo
Hospital, Delhi. Due to illness of his son,
revisionist
is
facing
huge
medical
expenditure. It is also submitted that on
1 All. Abhimanu Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
185
2.9.2015, respondent no. 2 left her in-laws
house and went back to her parental house
with clothes and jewellery leaving behind
her mentally challenged son. Revisionist
tried his best to pacify his matrimonial
dispute and also filed a case for restitution
of husband and wife under section 5 of The
Hindu Marriage Act in which respondent
no. 2 willfully commit default and never
appeared before the court. Respondent no.
2 also lodged a criminal case under section
498-A I.P.C. and 3 /4 of D.P. Act at Mahila
Police Station, Gorakhpur in which the
Investigating Officer filed final report in
favour of the revisionist. Respondent no. 2
also filed a case against the revisionist
under Domestic Violence Act before the
District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur,
which is still pending.

4. That respondent no. 2 filed an
application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in
which
after
receiving
notice
of
maintenance, revisionist filed a written
statement and also filed several evidence
regarding the fact that respondent no. 2 has
left the revisionist and his house without
any reasonable excuse. Learned Family
Court without considering any fact brought
by the revisionist and without considering
the material evidence regarding expenses of
treatment of his physically challenged son
as well as without considering the amount
of
loan
passed
impugned
order
of
maintenance of Rs. 19,000/- per month in
favour of respondent no. 2.

5. That learned Family Court did not
consider this fact that revisionist has also
absolute right over his income and by
means of impugned order rights of
dependents of the revisionist has been
curtailed. Without discussing any material
fact in this regard as well as without
considering the emphasis of section 125 (4)
Cr.P.C., learned Family Court has passed
the impugned order. Learned Family Court
passed the order only on the basis of
surmises and conjectures and wrongly and
illegally awarded maintenance of Rs.
19,000/- per month in favour of respondent
no. 2 from the date of order without
considering
the
financial
burden
of
revisionist. On this allegation learned
counsel prayed to allow this revision as
well as to set aside the impugned order
passed by the Family Court.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has raised issues that, (i) findings of facts
recorded by the Family Court are contrary
to the evidence on record and being
perverse, the same are liable to be set aside
and the maintenance fixed is excessive.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2 and learned A.G.A. opposed the
prayer of the revisionist by submitting that
after getting birth of a C.P. child, behaviour
of family of revisionist become violent
against respondent no. 2. Despite that she
always tried to maintain her relation as well
as to understand her husband but they did
not understand and used to threat to divorce
her. It is further submitted that respondent
no. 2 is a very sober and calm lady but
revisionist is very modern type so he
always used to taunt her the he do not want
to keep her in his house as his wife, and he
will do second marriage. That revisionist is
a Development Officer in LIC of India and
as per his salary slip his salary is Rs.
63,000/- (Rs. Sixty Three Thousand) per
month and including commission, his
salary is above Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh)
per month. Father of the revisionist was a
government employee and brother of the
revisionist is also a government bank
employee, then statement of the respondent
of taking loan is only for misguiding the
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court. On the other hand, father of the
respondent no. 2 is a 65 years old senior
citizen and her mother is a house wife, her
brother works in a private company for
livelihood. Revisionist has forcefully kept
son of respondent no. 2. Revisionist is a
government employee, whose income is
above one lakh rupees per month while
respondent no. 2 is a helpless house wife
and she has no source of income to fulfill
her necessary requirements. It is lastly
submitted that respondent no. 2 always
wants to live with her husband but
revisionist
don't.
Thus,
order
dated
14.5.2019 passed by learned family court
does not warrant any interference, and
revision is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and the written submissions
filed on behalf of the revisionist.

9. The provisions of Section 125,
Cr.P.C. is to provide for a social justice
falling within the swim of Articles 15 (3)
and 39 of the Constitution of India, which
have been enacted to protect the weaker
section of the society like women and
children. It is in the form of secular
safeguard irrespective of personal law of
the parties. The object is to compel a man
to perform moral obligations towards the
society in respect of maintaining his wife,
children and old parents so that they may
not face destitution and become the liability
of the society or may be forced to adopt a
life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for
their subsistence or go astray. The
proceedings are summary in nature and
provide for a speedy remedy against
starvation of a deserted wife, children or
indigent parents. To enforce the substantial
issues of civil law, the only remedy
available is in Civil Court, therefore,
findings recorded in proceedings under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. are not final and
parties are always at liberty to agitate their
rights in Civil Court. Order under Section
125, Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the
status, rights and obligations of the parties
and it only provides for maintenance of
indigent wives, children and parents.

10. The case requires to be considered
not only bearing in mind the aforesaid
proposition of law but also considering that
the powers of Revisional Court against
such an order are very limited for the
reason that in revisional jurisdiction the
Court satisfies itself as to the correctness,
legality and propriety of any finding,
sentence or order and as to the regularity of
the proceedings of the inferior Criminal
Court.

11. In Amur Chand Agrawal v.
Shanti Bose and Anr., AIR 1973 SC
799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the revisional jurisdiction should
normally be exercised in exceptional
cases when there is a glaring defect in
the proceedings or there is a manifest
error of point of law and consequently
there has been a flagrant miscarriage of
justice.

12. In State of Orissa v. Nakula
Sahu, AIR 1979 SC 663, Hon'ble
Supreme Court, placing reliance upon a
large number of its judgments including
Akalu Aheer v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973
SC 2145, held that the power, being
discretionary,
has
to
be
exercised
judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly.
The Court held that "judicial discretion,
as has often been said, means a
discretion which is informed by tradition
methodolised by analogy and discipline
by system".
1 All. Charanjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Lakhviri & Ors.
187

13. In State of Karnataka v. Appu
Balu Ingele, AIR 1993 SC 1126=II (1992)
CCR 458 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that in exercise of the revisional
powers, it is not permissible for the Court
to reappreciate the evidence. In Pathumma
and Anr. v. Muhammad, AIR 1986 SC
1436, the Apex Court observed that High
Court "committed an error in making a reassessment of the evidence" as in its
revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified
in substituting its own view for that of the
learned Magistrate on a question of fact".

14. If the instant case is examined in
view
of
the
aforesaid
settled
legal
propositions, it is not permissible for the
Court to reappreciate the evidence. More so,
there is nothing on record to show that the
findings of facts recorded by the Family
Court are perverse, based on no evidence or
have been arrived contrary to the evidence on
record.

15. Maintenance under Section 125
includes
expenses
for
food,
clothing,
residence, medical and other expenses
relating to normal persuit of fife and it has
certainly
no
bearing
from
starvation
maintenance so that the person maintained is
forced to lead an indignified life. However,
Court must consider that awarding such
amount should not render the person liable to
maintain a pauper.

16. It is admitted fact that there is no
source of income of her wife / respondent no.
2, so she is unable to maintain herself. She is
living
separately
due
to
continuous
harassment and demand of dowry. Learned
trial court after appreciating each and every
fact awarded the maintenance allowance of
Rs. 19,000/- to the respondent no. 2.
Judgment of the learned family court is well
reasoned and well discussed. There is no
illegality or irregularity in the assessment of
the maintenance allowance so there is no
interference warranted in the order dated
14.5.2019 passed by learned family court.

17. Revision is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

19. A copy of this order be
communicated to the lower court for
necessary compliance.
----------
(2021)01ILR A187
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

FAFO Defective No. 6 of 2020

Charanjeet Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lakhviri & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Namit Kumar Sharma, Sri Garun Pal
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Singh

Civil Law - Limitation Act (36 of 1963) -
Section 5 - Condonation of delay -
sufficient
cause - delay
must be
sufficiently explained - parties should
not resort to dilatory tactics and should
not sleep over their rights (Para 3)

Appeal filed against award of a Claims
Tribunal - delay of 3937 days in filing appeal
- Explanation given for delay - that the
judgment passed by Tribunal was never
communicated to the owner- appellant &