# Ankur Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 20
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2541 of 2019
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ankur-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-46982
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 125 -. Challenged
by
husband-impugned
order
directing
4 All. Ankur Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
21
maintainance to wife and daughter and house
rent allowance- merely because wife is earning -
not sufficient ground to refuse claim of
maintainance-but rent allowance is not in
consonance with the parameter of section 125
Cr.P.C.

Revision partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1.Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena & ors., (2015)
6 Supreme Court Cases 353

## Text

20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
record a finding whether the person is a
juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as
nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of
juvenility may be raised before any court
and it shall be recognized at any stage,
even after final disposal of the case, and
such claim shall be determined in terms of
the provisions contained in this Act and the
rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile
has ceased to be so on or before the date of
commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to
be a juvenile on the date of commission of
the offence under sub-section (1), it shall
forward the juvenile to the Board for
passing
appropriate
orders
and
the
sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be
deemed to have no effect. "

It
is
clear
from
the
above
provision, namely, Section 7A the claim of
juvenility to be raised before any court at any
stage, even after final disposal of the case
and sets out the procedure which the court is
required to adopt, when such claim of
juvenility is raised. Apart from the aforesaid
provisions of the Act as amended, and the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007, (in short `the Rules')
Rule 98, in particular, has to be read along
with Section 20 of the Act as amended by the
Amendment Act, 2006 which provides that
even after disposal of cases of juveniles in
conflict with law, the State Government or
the Board could, either suo motu or on an
application made for the purpose, review the
case of juvenile, determine the juvenility and
pass an appropriate order under Section 64
of the Act for immediate release of the
juvenile whose period of detention had
exceeded the maximum period provided in
Section 15 of the Act i.e. 3 years. All the
above relevant provisions including the
amended provisions of the Act and the Rules
have been elaborately considered by this
Court in Hari Ram (supra). "

10& fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ
ds ifjizs{; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr
fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ds n`f"Vxr] i=koyh ij
myC/k lk{; dks ns[krs gq, fo+}ku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k]
dksVZ la0&1] cfy;k }kjk ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k fn0
18&5&2015 =qfViw.kZ gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA

11& vr% ;g nkf.Md fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh
tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0 1]
cfy;k }kjk mijksDr okn esa ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k fn0
18&5&2015 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa izdj.k dks
muds le{k bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk
gS fd bl vkns'k esa mfYyf[kr fdlh Hkh fVIi.kh ds
xq.k&nks"k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk
leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d :is.k
voyksdu djus ds mijkUr mfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k
tk;A

12& dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl
vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc
Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsA
----------
(2021)04ILR A20
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2541 of 2019

Ankur ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri J.B. Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A., Sri Nipun Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 125 -. Challenged
by
husband-impugned
order
directing
4 All. Ankur Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
21
maintainance to wife and daughter and house
rent allowance- merely because wife is earning -
not sufficient ground to refuse claim of
maintainance-but rent allowance is not in
consonance with the parameter of section 125
Cr.P.C.

Revision partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1.Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena & ors., (2015)
6 Supreme Court Cases 353

2. Shamima Farooqui Vs Shahid Khan, 4
[(2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705

3. Sunita Kachwaha & ors. Vs Anil Kachwaha,
(2014)16 Supreme Court Cases 715

4. Farooq Ahmed Shala Vs Marie Chanel Giller,
Crl Revision P. No. 855 of 2018

5. Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena & ors.,
(2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 353

6.Farooq Ahmed Shala Vs Marie Chanel Giller,
Crl Revision P. No. 855 of 2018

7. Shamima Farooqui Vs Shahid Khan, (2015) 5
Supreme Court Cases 705

8.Sunita Kachwaha & ors. Vs Anil Kachwaha,
(2014)16 Supreme Court Cases 715

9. Amur Chand Agrawal Vs Shanti Bose & anr.,
AIR 1973 SC 799,

10.State of Orissa Vs Nakula Sahu, AIR 1979 SC
663

11. Akalu Aheer Vs Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC
2145

12.St. of Karn. Vs Appu Balu Ingele, AIR 1993
SC 1126=II (1992) CCR 458 (SC)

13. Pathumma & anr. Vs Muhammad, AIR 1986
SC 1436

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

1. This Crl. Revision has been
preferred by the revisionist being aggrieved
with the judgement and order dated
29.4.2019 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case
No. 120 of 2014 (Smt. Rachna Vs. Ankur
Gupta) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S.
Sector-39 NOIDA, District Gautam Budh
Nagar whereby the learned court below has
been pleased to award Rs. 25,000/-
maintenance each to the two minor
daughters of the revisionist and Rs.
20,000/- as rent, cumulatively Rs. 70,000/-
in exercise of powers under Section 125
Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the
opposite party No. 2 has filed an
application against the revisionist under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is registered as
Misc. Complaint No. 120/2014 (Smt.
Rachana Vs. Ankur Gupta) before the
learned Principal Judge/Family Court,
Gautam Budh Nagar on 26.4.2014.

3 . As per complaint, it has been stated
by the opposite party No. 2 that her
marriage
was
solemnized
with
the
revisionist on 20.2.2008 and after their
marriage both the revisionist and opposite
party No. 2 were living together at
Bangalore very happily and on 14.8.2009 a
daughter-Aakansha
was
born
to
the
opposite party No. 2 with the weedlock of
revisionist. Later on, 17.2.2012 another
daughter-Yashashwini was born to the
opposite party No. 2, presently both the
daughters are in the care and custody of the
opposite party No. 2.
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. After marriage, revisionist as well as
opposite party No. 2 moved to the Bangalore
where the revisionist is an employee in IT
Major
Yahoo
Software
Development
Corporation as Product Manager and the
Opposite party No. 2 also got employment in
NIFT Banglore as Assistant Professor.

5. It is further alleged in her complaint
that during pregnancy of second daughter,
revisionist solemnized marriage in USA with
Ms. John NG and totally neglected the
opposite party No. 2 so the opposite party
No. 2 moved out to Bangalore and take
shelter at her parent's house in NOIDA.
Opposite party No. 2 with two daughters,
residing with her parents since 17.3.2012 and
she is now transferred to NIFT Campus,
Haus Khas New Delhi and where she is
working as Assistant Professor.

6. After filing the written objection and
exchanging
the
affidavits,
Principal
Judge/Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar
directed the revisionist to deposit Rs. 20,000/-
per month from the date of order to the
opposite party No. 2 for interim maintenance
of both daughters vide order dated 7.11.2014.

7. In pursuance of the order of family
Court, he is regularly paying the money to the
opposite party No. 2 from November till
April 2019 and during pendency of this
application, statement of opposite party No. 2
is recorded before the learned court below as
PW1 on 16.2.2016 and 14.3.2016. In
consequences of relevance of opposite party
no. 2, revisionist has also filed a chief
examination by means of an affidavit on 19th
August, 2016 as DW-1.

8. During pendency of interim
maintenance, revisionist also moved the
application to quash and modify the order
of interim maintenance but no any order
has been passed and opposite party No. 2
filed the income tax return of the revisionist
as well as her income tax for assessment
year 2015 to 2019.

9. Learned Principal Judge/Family
Court,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar
without
applying his judicial mind and totally
ignoring the materials and evidence on
record passed the impugned judgement and
order dated 29.4.2019 which is totally
illegal and arbitrary.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted before the court that the property
of House No. 122B, Sector Panchkula,
House No. 450, Sector 2 Panchkula and
House No. 403 Tower No. 6, Royal Estate
Zirakpur Punjab are incorrect. It is further
submitted that learned trial court while
passing the impugned judgment and order
has considered the economic status of the
revisionist and passed the impugned
judgement and order. Learned counsel
further submitted that the learned court has
misinterpreted the oral and documentary
evidence and finding of the lower court is
solely on the basis of income tax return of
the previous year while the latest income
tax return clearly shows that the revisionist
was no longer employed and had a yearly
income of Rs. 4.14 lacs. It is next submitted
that in the month of July 2011, opposite
party No. 2 left the house of her husband
and went to her parental home and several
efforts commits by the revisionist but
opposite party No. 2 did not want to live
with the revisionist. Opposite party No. 2 is
living apart from the revisionist without
any reasonable cause. Revisionist has also
filed the Petition No. 112 of 2012 under
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for
dissolution of marriage before the court of
District Judge, Panchkula. When the
opposite party No. 2 got knowledge of the
4 All. Ankur Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
23
said divorce petition then he filed transfer
petition in Apex Court and on the said
transfer application of opposite party No. 2,
the case was transferred from District
Panchkula to District, Gautam Budh Nagar
which is still pending before the Family
Court,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar.
During
pendency of this case, opposite party No. 2
also filed the case under Section 12
readwith Section 17, 19, 20, 21 & 22,
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence
Act,
2005
before
Judicial
Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and also
lodged the first information report bearing
case crime No. 25 of 2014, under Sections
498A/323/504/506/406/494/420
IPC
&
Section 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act at police
station Mahila Thana, District Gautam
Budh Nagar and charge sheet was also
submitted
on
15.7.2014
by
the
Investigating Officer. However, further
proceeding of aforesaid case has been
stayed by this Hon'ble Court on 24.9.2014
passed in Crl. Misc. Application No. 41465
of 2014 and the said case is still pending
before this Hon'ble Court. Except this,
several litigations were pending before the
parties.
Learned
trial
court
without
considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and evidence available on record,
passed the impugned judgment and order
on 29.4.2019 and prayed for quashing the
impugned judgement and order dated
29.4.2019.

11. It has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2
that the revisionist submitted that he has
intimate relationship with Ms John NG in
USA since 2014 and further submitted that
the revisionist is highly qualified having
post graduate degree from IIT, Khadagpur
and management course from Howard
University and due to intimacy with Ms
John NG, revisionist abandoned the
opposite party No. 2 and he did not care the
daughters
and
due
to
compelling
circumstances opposite party No. 2 leave
Bangalore and came under the shelter of
her old aged parents and since then,
respondent is residing in parental home
since 17.3.2012. After leaving, Bangalore
respondent joined NIFT Campus, New
Delhi as Assistant Professor and after
deduction, her salary is only Rs. 41,000/-.

12. Learned counsel for the opposite
party No. 2 further submitted that the
revisionist admit his relationship with Ms
John NG and execution of will is in his
favour. It also alleged that the loan of Rs.
2.50 lacs US Dollar, which according to the
revisionist he allegedly borrowed for
education loan. Respondent successfully
established
by
way
of
documentary
evidence about the details of property
possessed by the revisionist and learned
family
court
rightly
awarded
the
maintenance amount to her daughters of
Rs. 25,000/- each and Rs. 20,000/- as house
rent allowance. It is further submitted that
the applicant is working in Hauj Khas and
no property is available on such house rent
in New Delhi. It is further submitted that
the welfare of their daughters is not only
responsibility of the opposite party No. 2
but the same is also equal, rather more
responsibility of revisionist to look after the
welfare. Cost of living in NCR is too much
higher and it is not possible to hire any
accommodation. Hence amount of Rs.
20,000/- is quite justified legal and also
liable to be upheld by this Court.
Revisionist has no right to challenge the
amount of maintenance awarded by Family
Court. Apart from house property this is
also admitted fact that the revisionist has so
many properties, admitted income from the
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dividends and shares of various companies
and, rental income. It is further submitted that
ample evidence available on record, which
itself proves that revisionist has wilfully
neglected and refused to maintain the minor
daughters
and
the
court
below
after
considering the statement accounts as well as
the previous income tax return has come to a
right conclusion in awarding maintenance. It
is also submitted that in order to escape from
his responsibility, revisionist intentionally
and deliberately filed the return for the
Assessment Year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020
showing his annual income @ 4,13,000/-
However, intentionally the income tax return
of previous year were not filed by the
revisionist and the same were brought on
record by the answering respondent. Lastly
learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the criminal revision is devoid of merit
and is liable to be dismissed subject to
imposition of heavy cost upon the revisionist.

13. Learned counsel for the opposite
party No. 2 relied upon the judgements of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [(2015) 6
Supreme Court Cases 353 (Bhuwan
Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and others)];
[(2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705
(Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan)];
[(2014)16 Supreme Court Cases 715
(Sunita Kachwaha and others Vs. Anil
Kachwaha)], and the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 1st July, 2019
in Crl Revision P. No. 855 of 2018
(Farooq Ahmed Shala vs. Marie Chanel
Giller)

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

15. 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.

16. In [(2015) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 353 (Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs.
Meena and others)] Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:

"......2. Be it ingeminated that
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short "the Code") was
conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish,
financial suffering of a woman who left her
matrimonial home for the reasons provided
in the provision so that some suitable
arrangements can be made by the Court and
she can sustain herself and also her children
if they are with her. The concept of
sustenance does not necessarily mean to
4 All. Ankur Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
25
lead the life of an animal, feel like an
unperson to be thrown away from grace
and roam for her basic maintenance
somewhere else. She is entitled in law to
lead a life in the similar manner as she
would have lived in the house of her
husband. That is where the status and strata
come into play, and that is where the
obligations of the husband, in case of a
wife, become a prominent one. In a
proceeding of this nature, the husband
cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of
the benefit of living with dignity. Regard
being had to the solemn pledge at the time
of marriage and also in consonance with
the statutory law that governs the field, it is
the obligation of the husband to see that the
wife does not become a destitute, a beggar.
A situation is not to be maladroitly created
whereunder she is compelled to resign to
her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It
is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the
sacrosanct duty to render the financial
support even if the husband is required to
earn money with physical labour, if he is
able bodied. There is no escape route
unless there is an order from the Court that
the wife is not entitled to get maintenance
from
the
husband
on
any
legally
permissible grounds...."

17. In Crl Revision P. No. 855 of
2018 (Farooq Ahmed Shala vs. Marie
Chanel Giller) decided on 1st July, 2019,
Delhi High Court observed as under:-

"...... 21. Petitioner has a legal,
social and moral responsibility to not only
maintain his wife but also his children.
Even if assuming that the respondent is
earning, the same cannot be a reason for the
petitioner to avoid the responsibility and
duty of maintaining his minor daughters.

22. A child for her upbringing
does not only require money. A lot of time
and effort goes in upbringing of a child. It
would be incorrect to hold that both the
parents are equally responsible for the
expenses of the child. A mother who has
custody of a child not only spends money
on the upbringing of the child but also
spent substantial time and effort in bringing
up the child. One cannot put value to the
time and effort put in by the mother in
upbringing of the child. No doubt, mother,
if she is earning, should also contribute
towards the expenses of the child but the
expenses
cannot
be
divided
equally
between the two....."

18. In [(2015) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 705 (Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid
Khan)] Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under;

"...15. While determining the
quantum of maintenance, this Court in
Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge,
Dehradun has held as follows:-

"8........The court has to consider
the status of the parties, their respective
needs, the capacity of the husband to pay
having regard to his reasonable expenses
for his own maintenance and of those he is
obliged under the law and statutory but
involuntary payments or deductions. The
amount of maintenance fixed for the wife
should be such as she can live in reasonable
comfort considering her status and the
mode of life she was used to when she
lived with her husband and also that she
does
not
feel
handicapped
in
the
prosecution of her case. At the same time,
the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or
extortionate."
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. This being the position in law,
it is the obligation of the husband to
maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted
to plead that he is unable to maintain the
wife due to financial constraints as long as
he is capable of earning. ..."

19. In [(2014)16 Supreme Court Cases
715 (Sunita Kachwaha and others Vs. Anil
Kachwaha)] Hon'ble Supreme Court in
observed as under:-

"......8. The learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the appellant-wife
is well qualified, having post graduate degree
in Geography and working as a teacher in
Jabalpur and also working in Health
Department. Therefore, she has income of her
own and needs no financial support from
respondent. In our considered view, merely
because the appellant-wife is a qualified post
graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold
that she is in a position to maintain herself.
Insofar as her employment as a teacher in
Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record
before the Family Court or in the High Court
to prove her employment and her earnings. In
any event, merely because the wife was
earning something, it would not be a ground
to reject her claim for maintenance...."

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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".

23 . 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".

24. 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.

25. In the case of maintenance, the
Court has to see whether the wife has
4 All. Ankur Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
27
refused to live with her husband without
any sufficient reason and it is also to be
seen whether the husband has neglected to
maintain his wife, without any valid reason.
In the present case, admittedly, the parties
are living separately from July, 2011 and
the reason for living separately is physical
and mental cruelty meted out to the wife
and one of the just ground for refusal of
wife to live with her husband is that her
husband is in extra marital relationship
with another woman.

26. The monetary relief granted under
section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be adequate, fair
and reasonable and consistent with the
standard of living to which the aggrieved
person is accustomed.

27. Merely, because wife is capable of
earning, is not sufficient ground to refuse
claim of maintenance granted by Court to
the minor daughters of the opposite party
No. 2.

28. Plea advanced by the husband is
that he does not have the means to pay or
he does not have job or his business is not
doing well, these are only the bald excuses
and in fact, they have no acceptability in
law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied
and is in the position to support himself,
thus, he is under the legal obligation to
support his minor children and her wives.
So in these circumstances, the order of the
learned
family
court
to
award
the
maintenance to the minor daughters of the
revisionist is appropriate, just and legal.

29. So far as regard the house rent
allowance awarded by the family court, is not
just and proper. It is admitted fact that the
respondent No. 2 is an Assistant Professor in
NIFT and as per income tax return of
assessment year 2018-2019, the annual
gross total income of the opposite party No. 2
is Rs. 13,73,902/-. This is also an admitted
fact that the opposite party No. 2 is presently
living at her parental house alongwith her two
daughters and as per salary slip, she also get
the house rent allowance.

30. Since the opposite party No. 2 have
already got the house rent allowance so, in
my opinion, house rent allowance is not
permissible
under
the
maintenance
allowance. Hence, the judgement and order
of the family court regarding Rs. 20,000/- as
rent allowance is liable to be quashed. It is
also pertinent to mention that the rent
allowance is also not come in the purview of
maintenance allowance under section 125
Cr.P.C. So the award of maintenance
allowance to the minor children (opposite
party Nos. 3 and 4), does not suffer from any
illegality,
impropriety,
perversity
or
jurisdictional error. Finding of the court
below for awarding maintenance to her minor
daughter of Rs. 25,000/- each, is just and
proper but Rs. 20,000/- as a house rent
allowance is not inconsonance with the
parameter of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

31.

Under
these
facts
and
circumstances, revision is partly allowed with
the observation that the children of opposite
party No. 2 & the revisionist who are living
with opposite party No. 2, will receive
maintenance allowance of Rs. 25,000/- as
awarded by the learned revisional court but
so far as regard the house rent allowance
which is awarded to the opposite party No. 2,
is liable to be quashed.

32.

With
the
aforesaid
direction/observation,
this
revision
is
disposed of.
----------
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)04ILR A28
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3392 of 2015

Ram Sakhi & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Pradeep Kumar, Sri Akhilesh Singh, Sri
B.M. Pandey, Sri Shivam Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Santosh Shukla, Sri Kalpdeo
Mishra

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 306 - Revisionist
challenging impugned summoning order
u/s 306 Cr.P.C.-alleges that the wife of
the deceased and her maternal family
members have been roped-for property
gain -have no specific roles-nor named in
the FIR-court can only see prima facie
case-nothing on record to conclude that
the order impugned is illegal.

Revision disposed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. R.R. Kapur Vs St.of Punj. AIR 2 of 4 1960 SC
866

2. St. of Har.Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426

3. St. of Bihar Vs P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cr.) 192

4. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr. (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1& fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh
vf[kys'k flag] foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh
larks"k 'kqDyk ds lg;ksxh vf/koDrk Jh dYinso feJk
,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk Jh fodkl
xksLokeh dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

2& fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dh vksj ls ;g nkf.Md
fuxjkuh] eq0v0la0 723 lu 2011] vUrxZr /kkjk 306
Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk dksrokyh] ftyk vkSjS;k ls mn~Hkwr
l= ijh{k.k la0 36 lu 2013] jkT; izfr jkfxuh ,oa 1
vU; esa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ ua0 3] vkSjS;k }kjk
ikfjr vkns'k fn0 18&8&2015 dks vikLr djus gsrq
nk;j dh x;h gS] ftlds }kjk oknh fo'othr }kjk
izLrqr izkFkZuk i= 27&[k Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS ,oa
vfHk;qDrx.k@fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dks /kkjk 306 Hkk0na0fo0
ds n.Muh; vijk/k esa vkgwr fd;k x;k gSA

3& fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ
izLrqr fd;k fd oknh eqdnek }kjk vafdr djk;h x;h
izkFkfedh esa leLr vfHk;qDrx.k dks ukfer ugha fd;k
x;k gS] e`rd }kjk viuh iRuh dh izrkM+uk ds dkj.k
Lo;a QWklh yxkdj vkRegR;k djus dh ckr dgh x;h
gS tcfd og vius ek;ds esa jgrh Fkh] foi{kh la0 2
}kjk vfHk;qDrx.k@fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dh dksbZ fof'k"V
igpku u rks foospukf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr dh x;h
vkSj u gh voj U;k;ky; ds le{kA mudk ;g Hkh
dFku gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ c`tHkku flag ch0,l0,Q0
dk deZpkjh gS] gfjvkse flag ,e0ih0 iqfyl esa dk;Zjr
gS] jke ujs'k flag ;w0 ih0 iqfyl esa dk;Zjr gS ,oa
fo/kk;d mQZ iIiw mQZ lq[kiky flag vkehZ esa dk;Zjr
gS rFkk ;s lc viuh&viuh M~;wVh esa O;Lr jgrs gSa
vkSj ckgj jgrs gSa] buds }kjk e`rd dk mRihM+u djus
dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS rFkk fo}ku voj U;k;ky; us
l= ijh{k.k esa vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 1 ds c;ku ,oa
eq[; ijh{kk iw.kZ gksus ds ckn] oknh fo'othr }kjk
eqdnek foyfEcr djus ds mn~ns'; ls ,oa e`rd dh
tehu gM+ius ds fy, e`rd dh iRuh ,oa vU;
vfHk;qDrx.k dks ryc djus gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr
fd;k
ftls
Lohdkj
djds
vfHk;qDrx.k@fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dks vkgwr djus esa =qfV
dh x;h gS] blfy, iz'uxr vkns'k vikLr fd, tkus
;ksX; gSA

4& foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa
fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk us fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds
rdksZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd
U;k;ky; }kjk ek= vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 1 dk c;ku
,oa izfrijh{kk iw.kZ gksus ds ckn] oknh ds vkosnu i=
vUrxZr /kkjk 319 na0iz0la0 ij mHk; i{kksa dks lquokbZ