# Aftab Alam Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 862
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2490 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aftab-alam-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45319
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections
397/401
&
Protection of Woman from Domestic
Violence Act,2005-Section 23-challenge
to-interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/-was
awarded-husband challenged this order
before High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. ,side by
side same was challenged by Appellate
court-which too was dismissed-again
husband
filed
criminal
revision-this
shows litigating attitude of husband, who
had filed all these proceeding, but not
ready to make payment to his wife-order
of lower courts is confirmed by this court
directing
husband
to
pay
maintenance.Hence, dismissed.
 (Para 6 to 8)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

The revision is dismissed.

## Text

862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
groom nor the groom had been examined
nor the specific mark of identification is
there on the articles, which was ought to
be given nor single iota was said either in
the complaint or in the statement recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. regarding
criminal case, which was lodged against
complainant and his family members, for
this proposed marriage. It itself shows that
it was an attempt to counter the previously
instituted case against complainant.

9. A bride is not a physical
commodity. It could never be said that one
is having option to see her and then select
or reject her for marriage. Rather, bride
itself
is
with
fundamental
rights,
guaranteed
under
Part
III
of
the
Constitution of India, and she herself is
having all rights of life and liberty. It can
never be permitted to male chauvinism to
see photograph and then select or reject for
marriage, as has been said by complainant.
What may be a criteria for selecting a girl
for marriage or for rejecting a girl for
marriage? that too not by a person with
whom marriage is going to be performed,
rather his father or uncle, is nothing more
than a case of male chauvinism. Hence, on
the evidence collected by Magistrate, this
impugned
order
was
well
within
jurisdiction of Magistrate having no
illegality or irregularity.

10. Accordingly, the revision merits
its dismissal. The revision is dismissed as
such.
----------
(2020)02ILR A862

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Criminal Revision No. 2490 of 2018

Aftab Alam ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lakshmi Kant Trigunait, Sri Dev Kant
Trigunait

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Mohammad Maseeh, Sri Wahaj
Ahmad Siddiqui

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections
397/401
&
Protection of Woman from Domestic
Violence Act,2005-Section 23-challenge
to-interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/-was
awarded-husband challenged this order
before High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. ,side by
side same was challenged by Appellate
court-which too was dismissed-again
husband
filed
criminal
revision-this
shows litigating attitude of husband, who
had filed all these proceeding, but not
ready to make payment to his wife-order
of lower courts is confirmed by this court
directing
husband
to
pay
maintenance.Hence, dismissed.
 (Para 6 to 8)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

The revision is dismissed.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J).)

1. This criminal revision under
Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by Aftab Alam against State of U.P. and
Another, with a prayer for setting aside
impugned order of an appellate Court
Additional District Judge F.T.C., Court
No. 20, Allahabad, passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 184/2017, Aftab Alam vs.
State of U.P. and another, dated 13.7.2018,
whereby appeal was dismissed and order
2 All. Aftab Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
863
of Magistrate dated 3.6.2014, passed over
an application moved under Section 23 of
Protection of Woman from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, was confirmed.

2. learned counsel for the applicant
argued that appellate failed to appreciate
facts and law placed before it. Order dated
3.6.2014 was against fact on record.
Applicant had deserted her husband and
husband who was a workman at petrol
pump was not in a position to maintain as
above but Magistrate failed to take notice
of this fact and this was challenged before
Appellate Court. Wherein, Appellate court
has not decided matter in issue. Rather, it
dismissed appeal on the basis of finding
given by this Court in a proceeding under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it was
apparently erroneous on the face of record
and jurisdiction exercised by Appellate
Court was not proper in its exercise.
Hence, this criminal revision with above
prayer.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent vehemently opposed that this
Court in a proceeding under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., wherein, order dated 3.6.2014,
was challenged, had decided by way of
dismissing
above
proceeding
and
confirming impugned order. Hence, once
this order was confirmed, then, Appellate
Court was well within jurisdiction to pass
impugned order. Hence, this revision be
dismissed.

4. Learned has AGA also opposed
the above prayer.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the material
placed on record, it is apparent that in a
proceeding under Section 23 of Protection
of Woman from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, in a complaint Case No. 540 of
2014, pending before Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Allahabad, (Smt.
Asma Bano Vs. Aftab Alam), it was
requested that some interim maintenance
be awarded and learned Magistrate, vide
order dated 3.6.2014, directed opposite
party husband of applicant for providing
Rs. 3,000/-, per month as maintenance to
Smt.
Asma
Bano. This
order
was
challenged in a proceeding under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed
by High Court, wherein, above order was
got confirmed. Though, this order was
challenged in a proceeding before Hon'ble
Court, side by side, it was challenged in an
appeal before Appellate Court of Session
Judge, Allahabad, wherein, Appellate
Court dismissed appeal by impugned
order, mentioning the order of this Court,
passed in a proceeding under Section 482
of Cr.P.C.

6. From the very perusal of revision,
it is apparent that it is an admitted fact that
Smt. Asma Bano, is married wife of
revisionist. She is having separate living. It
was said to be a desertion by husband,
whereas, husband has said desertion by
wife. But, it is a question of trial court and
it is admitted fact that both of them are
living in desertion. The maintenance
awarded is Rs. 3,000/-, per month, a very
meagre amount at the rupees of 100 per
day. Nobody can survive in 100 rupees per
day and even husband is working at petrol
pump, is always expected to maintain his
wife. A direction for paying Rs. 3,000/-,
per month, is well withing jurisdiction of
Magistrate. This order was challenged in a
proceeding under section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
which too, was dismissed and order was
confirmed. Upon the request of learned
counsel for the revisionist, matter was
referred for mediation wherein, assurance
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was made for making deposit of interim
maintenance
by
above
order
of
Magistrate's Court. This mediation appears
to have been failed and this further appeal
and
criminal
revision
against
same
maintenance order, has been filed. It
shows litigating attitude of husband, who
had filed all these proceeding, but not
ready to make payment to his wife. High
Court, in its general superintendence of
power under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, is also to look all such type of
affairs, which are to be cured for enabling
Constitution and its system to get the goal
of welfare state enshrined in Chapter IV of
the Constitution of India.

7. Under all above facts and
circumstances, learned trial Court as well
as learned Appellate Court was well within
jurisdiction. There is no illegality or
irregularity apparent on record or failure of
jurisdiction by any above court. Though,
this petition deserves to be dismissed with
special cost but the cost is not being
imposed. But a direction is being made for
making payment of maintenance as
ordered by lower Courts.

8.
The
Criminal
Revision
is
dismissed, accordingly.

9. With the aforesaid directions, this
application is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)02ILR A864

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2509 of 2014
Jubair Ahmad ...Revisionist
Versus
Ishrat Bano ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Abhishek Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Manvendra Singh, Sri S.K.
Nigam

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections
397/401Section
125-challenge
to-award
of
maintenance to the divorced wife when
she did not marry-revisionist contended
that Second maintenance application u/s
125
is
not
maintainable-subsequent
application is barred by the principle of
res-judicata-the amount of maintenance
u/s 125 is not restricted for the iddat
period only u/s 3(1)(a) of the Muslim
women (Protection of Rights on Divorce)
Act-section 125 Cr.P.C. overrides the
personal law of the parties-she is entitled
to take recourse to section 125 Cr.P.C. if
she is unable to maintain herself till she
remarries-Family court is justified-hence,
dismissed.(Para 1 to 37)

B. Criminal Law-Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a
piece of social legislation which provides
for a summary and speedy relief by way
of maintenance to a destitute wife and
helpless children.(Para 38 to 46)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

1.
Pradeep
Kumar Maskara Vs. St. Of
W.B.,(2015) 2 SCC 653

2. Kalinga Mining Corpn. Vs. UOI, (2013) 5 SCC
252

3. Mohd.Ahmed Khan Vs. Shah Bano Begum,
AIR (1985) SC 945

4. Bai Tahira Vs. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia,
(1979) 2 SCC 316