# Anubhav Verma Revisionist v. Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 201
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 801 of 2021
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anubhav-verma-revisionist-v-principal-judge-family-court-faizabad-ors-48176
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Family Courts Act ,1984
- Section 19(4) - Appeal - The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
397/401 - revision , Section125 - order for
maintenance
of
Wives,
Children
and
Parents - litigant while approaching the
High Court for invoking its revisional
jurisdiction, must place on record all the
material and relevant documents and he
cannot be allowed play hide and seek with
the
Court
and
this
conduct
of
the
revisionist cannot be appreciated - 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.(Para
- 26,29)

Opposite party no. 2 filed application - seeking
interim maintenance from revisionist - Family
Court partly allowed application for interim
maintenance - awarding sum of Rs.15, 000/-
only to opposite party no. 2 (wife) - Rs.15,
000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (minor
daughter) -
revisionist
did
not
file
his
affidavit of assets and liabilities - not annexed
his salary slips, income tax returns and
statements of his bank accounts.(Para - 2,28)
HELD:-
Amount of Rs.15,000/- per month
each awarded as interim maintenance to the
opposite parties no. 2 and 3 does not suffer
from any such illegality . No interference by
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Impugned orders do not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity.(Para -31, 32)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

3 All. Anubhav Verma Vs. Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad & Ors.
201
(2022)03ILR A201
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 801 of 2021

Anubhav Verma ...Revisionist
Versus
Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad &
Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ashok Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Vaibhav Srivastava

(A) Criminal Law - Family Courts Act ,1984
- Section 19(4) - Appeal - The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
397/401 - revision , Section125 - order for
maintenance
of
Wives,
Children
and
Parents - litigant while approaching the
High Court for invoking its revisional
jurisdiction, must place on record all the
material and relevant documents and he
cannot be allowed play hide and seek with
the
Court
and
this
conduct
of
the
revisionist cannot be appreciated - 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.(Para
- 26,29)

Opposite party no. 2 filed application - seeking
interim maintenance from revisionist - Family
Court partly allowed application for interim
maintenance - awarding sum of Rs.15, 000/-
only to opposite party no. 2 (wife) - Rs.15,
000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (minor
daughter) -
revisionist
did
not
file
his
affidavit of assets and liabilities - not annexed
his salary slips, income tax returns and
statements of his bank accounts.(Para - 2,28)
HELD:-
Amount of Rs.15,000/- per month
each awarded as interim maintenance to the
opposite parties no. 2 and 3 does not suffer
from any such illegality . No interference by
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Impugned orders do not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity.(Para -31, 32)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Rajnesh Vs Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324

2. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs Distt. Judge, Dehradun
, (1997) 7 SCC 7

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr.
Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the
opposite parties no.2 and 3.

2. By means of the instant revision
filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Courts Act read with Section 397/401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisionist
has challenged the order dated 13.08.2021
passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Faizabad in Case No.187 of 2020
(Smt. Samiksha Saran & Another Vs.
Anubhav Verma), whereby the application
filed by the opposite party no. 2 seeking
interim maintenance from the revisionist
has been decided and as against the demand
of
Rs.50,000/-
per
month
towards
maintenance of the opposite party nos.2
and 3 who are the wife and the minor
daughter of the revisionist, the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court has directed
the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-
per month to his wife and Rs.15,000/- per
month to his daughter. He has also
challenged the order dated 27-09-2021,
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whereby the Family Court has rejected his
application "FOR REVIEW AND SET
ASIDE THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE
ORDER PASSED ON 13.08.2021".

3. The revisionist has contended that
the Principal Judge, Family Court has not
provided him a proper opportunity of
hearing. After service of summons of the
case, the revisionist put in appearance for
the first time on 08-01-2021, on which date
he was supplied copies of the application
for maintenance, affidavit in support of the
same and the application for interim
maintenance without the affidavit as
required as per the guidelines formulated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324.

4. His submission is that the opposite
party no. 2 filed an affidavit dated 16-022021 in compliance of the aforesaid
judgment, without filing any document as
required in law and various contents
necessarily required were not correctly
stated in the affidavit. The opposite party
no. 2 filed some documents on 12-08-2021,
which were not relevant for adjudication of
the quantum of interim maintenance.
Although
the
revisionist
sought
an
adjournment on 13-08-2021, the learned
Principal Judge passed an order awarding
interim maintenance. While passing the
order of interim maintenance, the learned
Principal Judge has not recorded a finding
as to whether the opposite party no. 2 is
legally
entitled
to
receive
interim
maintenance.

5. On 04-09-2021 the revisionist filed
an application before the Principal Judge,
Family Court for setting aside the order dated
13-08-2021 and to provide opportunity of
hearing but the same was rejected by means
of an order dated 27-09-2021.

6. While challenging the aforesaid
orders, the revisionist has submitted that if he
is compelled to pay the interim maintenance
awarded to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, it
will be very harsh and difficult for him to pay
the EMI's of Rs.31,068/- payable against the
Housing Loan (in the joint names of
revisionist and the opposite party no. 2),
which is being paid by the revisionist alone.
The revisionist, being the only son of his
parents, is bearing the responsibility of his
younger sister who is about to get married
and he has to bear the expenses of his father
who has undergone a major surgery of Fistula
and earlier has undergone a major bypass
heart surgery in the year 2017. His mother is
suffering from high blood pressure and is
diabetic whose medical expenses are also
borne by the revisionist.

7. The revisionist has filed a written
statement in reply to the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. and he has filed
objections against the application for interim
maintenance on 16-03-2021.

8. On 13-08-2021 the revisionist filed
an application for adjournment of the case on
the ground that he had engaged a new
counsel. The said application was rejected by
the Principal Judge, Family Court for the
reason that there was no sufficient ground for
adjournment.

9. The second and the third Provisos
appended to Section 125 provide as follows:

"Provided
further
that
the
Magistrate may, during the pendency of the
proceeding regarding monthly allowance
for the maintenance under this sub-section,
order such person to make a monthly
allowance for the interim maintenance of
his wife or such child, father or mother, and
the expenses of such proceeding which the
3 All. Anubhav Verma Vs. Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad & Ors.
203
Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay
the same to such person as the Magistrate
may from time to time direct:

Provided also that an application
for the monthly allowance for the interim
maintenance and expenses for proceeding
under the second proviso shall, as far as
possible, be disposed of within sixty days
from the date of the service of notice of the
application such person."

10. Thus there is a statutory mandate
that
the
applications
for
interim
maintenance have to be disposed off within
a period of sixty days from the date of
service of notice of the application on the
respondent. Moreover, engagement of a
new counsel does not give a right to a party
to stall the proceedings of the case.
Therefore, the Family Court did not
commit any illegality in rejecting the
application for adjournment filed on the
ground of engagement of a new Counsel.

11. The order dated 13-08-2021
passed on the application for interim
maintenance also records that the parties
were heard on the application for interim
maintenance. The learned Principal Judge
has recorded the submissions made on
behalf of the revisionist that the opposite
party no. 2 holds a degree of M.B.A. and
she is working in a private company and is
earning Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/- per month.
She has her own house and two plots in
Ayodhya. Since imposition of lockdown in
March 2020, the revisionist is being paid
60 per cent of his salary and his job is not
permanent.
He
does
not
have
any
agricultural land or business. He has to bear
the responsibility of his old and ailing
parents. He has also submitted that he
continuously keeps on visiting the opposite
party no. 2 and pays her the monthly
expenses and he also pays the school fees
of the opposite party no. 3, instalment of
housing loan and mobile bill of the
opposite party no. 2.

12. The learned Principal Judge,
Family Court has recorded in the order that
from the money order receipts filed by the
revisionist it appears that he has sent a total
amount of Rs.13,500/- to the opposite party
no. 2 in five instalments between 05-092020 to 08-03-2021. The documents filed
by him to prove the employment of the
opposite party no. 2 relate to the year 2014
and November 2018. In her affidavit of
assets of liabilities filed before the learned
Principal Judge, the opposite party no. 2
has stated that earlier she was in a private
job at NOIDA but presently she is not
earning.

13. The Family Court has also taken
into consideration the contention of the
opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist's
father was employed in police department
and he is not financially dependent upon
the revisionist. The Family Court has also
recorded that the details of bank account
furnished by the revisionist discloses only
the amounts withdrawn and it does not
contain details of the amount credited to his
account which indicates that the revisionist
is concealing the correct particulars of his
income from the Court.

14. After taking into consideration the
aforesaid facts, the Family Court has partly
allowed
the
application
for
interim
maintenance
awarding
a
sum
of
Rs.15,000/- only to the opposite party no. 2
and Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite
party no.3 and in view of the aforesaid
discussions the order does not appear to be
either having been passed without giving
an adequate opportunity on suffering from
any illegality or infirmity.
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Shri A. K. Verma, learned counsel
for the revisionist has submitted that the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court has
completely ignored the direction issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh
(Supra), wherein it has been held that the
party claiming maintenance should be
required to file a concise application for
interim
maintenance
with
limited
pleadings, alongwith an Affidavit of
Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before
the concerned court. On the basis of the
pleadings filed by both parties and the
Affidavits of Disclosure, the Court would
be in a position to make an objective
assessment of the approximate amount to
be awarded towards maintenance at the
interim stage. Keeping in mind the need for
a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure
of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in
maintenance proceedings, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court framed the following
guidelines: -

(72.1)(a)
The
Affidavit
of
Disclosure
of
Assets
and
Liabilities
annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this
judgment, as may be applicable, shall be
filed by the parties in all maintenance
proceedings,
including
pending
proceedings before the concerned Family
Court / District Court / Magistrate's Court,
as the case may be, throughout the country;

(72.2)(b) The applicant making
the claim for maintenance will be required
to file a concise application accompanied
with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;

(72.3)(c) The respondent must
submit the reply alongwith the Affidavit of
Disclosure within a maximum period of
four weeks. The Courts may not grant more
than two opportunities for submission of
the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and
Liabilities to the respondent. If the
respondent delays in filing the reply with
the Affidavit, and seeks more than two
adjournments for this purpose, the Court
may consider exercising the power to strike
off the defence of the respondent, if the
conduct is found to be wilful and
contumacious
in
delaying
the
proceedings.32 On the failure to file the
Affidavit within the prescribed time, the
Family Court may proceed to decide the
application for maintenance on basis of the
Affidavit filed by the applicant and the
pleadings on record;

(72.4)(d) The above format may
be modified by the concerned Court, if the
exigencies of a case require the same. It
would be left to the judicial discretion of
the concerned Court, to issue necessary
directions in this regard.

(72.5)(e)
If
apart
from
the
information contained in the Affidavits of
Disclosure, any further information is
required, the concerned Court may pass
appropriate orders in respect thereof.

(72.6)(f) If there is any dispute
with respect to the declaration made in the
Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party
may seek permission of the Court to serve
interrogatories, and seek production of
relevant documents from the opposite party
under Order XI of the CPC;

On filing of the Affidavit, the
Court may invoke the provisions of Order
X of the C.P.C or Section 165 of the
Evidence Act 1872, if it considers it
necessary to do so;

The income of one party is often
not within the knowledge of the other
spouse. The Court may invoke Section 106
of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary,
since the income, assets and liabilities of
the
spouse
are
within
the
personal
knowledge of the party concerned.

(72.7)(g) If during the course of
proceedings, there is a change in the
financial status of any party, or there is a
3 All. Anubhav Verma Vs. Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad & Ors.
205
change of any relevant circumstances, or if
some new information comes to light, the
party
may
submit
an
amended
/
supplementary affidavit, which would be
considered by the court at the time of final
determination.

(72.8)(h) The pleadings made in
the applications for maintenance and
replies
filed
should
be
responsible
pleadings;
if
false
statements
and
misrepresentations are made, the Court
may consider initiation of proceeding u/S.
340 Cr.P.C.., and for contempt of Court.

(72.9)(i) In case the parties
belong
to
the
Economically
Weaker
Sections ("EWS"), or are living Below the
Poverty Line ("BPL"), or are casual
labourers, the requirement of filing the
Affidavit would be dispensed with.

(72.10)(k) The concerned Family
Court / District Court / Magistrate's Court
must make an endeavour to decide the I.A.
for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned
order, within a period of four to six months
at the latest, after the Affidavits of
Disclosure have been filed before the court.

(72.11) A professional Marriage
Counsellor must be made available in every
Family Court.

16. Shri A. K. Verma, has submitted
that the opposite party no. 2 had filed only
an incomplete affidavit of disclosure of
income and liabilities without the requisite
documents.

17. Copy of the aforesaid affidavit of
the opposite party no. 2 was served upon
the revisionist on 16-02-2021 itself. As per
the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court contained in para 72.3 of
the judgment in Rajnesh (Supra), it was
obligatory upon the revisionist to submit
his reply along with the affidavit of
disclosure within a maximum period of
four
weeks. The
Courts
have
been
prohibited against granting more than two
opportunities
for
submission
of
the
affidavit of disclosure of assets and
liabilities to the respondents.

18. In the present case, although a
copy of the affidavit of assets and liabilities
of the opposite party no. 2 were served
upon the revisionist on 16-02-2021 and the
period of four weeks stipulated in Rajnesh
(Supra)
expired
on
16-03-2021,
the
applicant did not file his affidavit of assets
and liabilities as mandated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and
the same was prepared on 26th of October
2021 i.e. after expiry of more than eight
months since a copy of the affidavit of the
opposite party no.2 was provided to him
and after expiry of more than two months
since passing of the order dated 13-08-2021
awarding
interim
maintenace
to
the
opposite parties no. 2 and 3.

19. When the revisionist himself has
opted not to file his affidavit of assets and
liabilities before the Family Court as
mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh (Supra) and when after rejection
of his application for adjournment filed on
13-08-2021, the learned counsel for the
revisionist made submissions in opposition
to the application for grant of interim
maintenance, the order dated 13-08-2021
passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court awarding interim maintenance to the
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 after taking into
consideration
the
objections
of
the
revisionist as well as the submissions made
on his behalf, cannot be termed to have
been passed without giving a proper
opportunity of hearing to the revisionist.

20. On 04-09-2021 the revisionist
filed an application for setting aside the
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid order dated 13.08.2021 on the
ground that the said order has been passed
without keeping in view the order passed
by Rajnesh (Supra). The application does
not disclose the provisions of law under
which it has been filed, apparently because
the order having been passed after taking
into consideration the objections filed by
the revisionist against the application for
interim
maintenance
as
also
the
submissions made on his behalf by his
learned counsel in opposition to the
aforesaid claim, is not an ex-parte order
and there is no provision in law which
empowers the Family Court to set aside an
order passed by itself on merits of the case
after hearing and taking into consideration
the submission made by the respective
Counsel for the parties.

21. The revisionist has contended in
the aforesaid application that he was not
granted any opportunity to file his income
certificate. He further contended that the
opposite party no. 2 is enjoying a lavish
life. She is more qualified than the
revisionist and she is working as a teacher
in Sunbeam School, Ayodhya and earning
Rs.13,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month. His
old parents and unmarried sister are
dependent on him and he is unable to pay
Rs.30,000/- per month towards interim
maintenance.

22. The aforesaid application has been
rejected by the Family Court by means of
the order dated 27.09.2021 by highlighting
the contradictions in two affidavits-19-B
and 17-B of the revisionist, in one of which
he has alleged that the opposite party no. 2
is working as H.R-cum-Counsellor in
Sunbeam School and her earning is
Rs.12,500/- to Rs.14,000/- per month while
in the other he has stated that she is
employed in Duniya Online Pvt. Ltd and
earns Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month.
The Family Court has held that even if the
opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs.12,500/-
to Rs14,000/- per month, it would not
absolve the revisionist of his liability to pay
interim maintenance to the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3.

23. The revisionist has filed a copy of
his affidavit of assets and liabilities filed
before the Family Court in which he has
stated that his general monthly expenses
(rent, household expenses, medical bills,
transportation
etc.
to
be
Rs.35,000/-
approximately). Against the entry "whether
any
voluntary
contribution
towards
maintenance has been made/will be made
in the future? If yes, provide details of the
same". The revisionist has mentioned
Rs.19,631/- per month approximately. As
against the details of dependant family
members he has mentioned the names of
his daughter, opposite party no. 3, his father
and mother and immediately afterwards
where he was required to disclose "if any
independent source/s of income of the
dependants, including interest income,
assets, pension, tax liability on any such
income and any other relevant details". The
revisionist has stated that his father denied
disclosing his income as per the Article 21
of the Constitution of India.

24. The revisionist has not stated that
his father and mother do not have any
income of their own and from his statement
it appears that they are in fact not
financially dependent on him.

25. In his affidavit of assets and
liabilities the revisionist has claimed his
monthly income to be Rs. 97,765.00/- per
month (in hand) but he has neither
disclosed his gross income nor has he filed
copies of his salary slip or income tax
3 All. Anubhav Verma Vs. Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad & Ors.
207
return from which his gross salary can be
ascertained. He has not disclosed the
amount which is required to be deducted
from his salary mandatorily.

26. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. Distt.
Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay
down that "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."

(Emphasis supplied)

27. For taking into consideration
income of a person for the purpose of
fixing maintenance, only such deductions
made from his income are to be taken into
account as are mandatory. If a person
willingly gets a higher amount deducted
from his salary than the prescribed
minimum
statutory
deduction,
those
deductions
will
not
be
taken
into
consideration while fixing the amount of
maintenance, so as to justify award of a
lower amount as maintenance.

28. Keeping in view of the aforesaid
facts and conduct of the revisionist, I am
satisfied that when the revisionist had been
supplied with a copy of the affidavit of
assets and liabilities of the opposite party
no. 2 on 16-02-2021 itself, his failure to file
an affidavit of his assets and liabilities in
response to the same till passing of the
order dated 13-08-2021 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court awarding
interim maintenance to the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 cannot be assailed on the
ground that no proper opportunity of
hearing was granted to the revisionist. The
revisionist has filed the application for
setting aside the orders dated 13-08-2021
on 04-09-2021 and he did not file his
affidavit of assets and liabilities even with
this application and he has filed it as late as
on 26-10-2021. Even while filing a copy of
the affidavit of his assets and liabilities
before this court, he has not annexed his
salary slips, income tax returns and
statements of his bank accounts.

29. A litigant while approaching the
High Court for invoking its revisional
jurisdiction, must place on record all the
material and relevant documents and he
cannot be allowed play hide and seek with
the Court and this conduct of the revisionist
cannot be appreciated.

30. The contention of the revisionist
that he has to take care of his parents and
sister and for this reason he cannot pay
interim maintenance to his wife and
daughter cannot be appreciated, more
particularly when he has not categorically
stated that his parents have no income of
their own and they as well as his sister are
financially
dependent
on
him.
His
contention that if he is made to pay the
amount of interim maintenance to his wife
and daughter, he will not be able to pay the
EMI of the housing loan is also not without
any force, as providing maintenance to his
wife
and
daughter
is
the
statutory
obligation of the revisionist. Keeping in
view the fact that the revisionist has stated
his in hand monthly income to be
Rs.97,765/- and he has not disclosed his
gross income, the total amount of 30,000/-
per month awarded as interim maintenance
to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 cannot be
said to be excessive.

31. By means of the order dated 1308-2021, the Family Court has merely
made an interim arrangement for the
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintenance of the opposite parties no. 2
and 3, who are none other than the wife and
daughter of the revisionist, which shall
obviously be open to be revised when the
Family Court decides the Application under
Section 125 Cr. P. C. finally. The revisionist
himself has pleaded that he keeps on
visiting the opposite party no. 2 and pays
her the monthly expenses and he is
voluntarily paying Rs.19,631/- per month
to the opposite party no. 3. In such a factual
situation, no reasonable person of ordinary
prudence can accept that a person who is
voluntarily paying such amounts to his wife
and daughter, will be aggrieved by the
award of Rs.15,000/- each as interim
maintenance to his wife and daughter. The
amount of Rs.15,000/- per month each
awarded as interim maintenance to the
opposite parties no. 2 and 3 does not appear
to be suffering from any such illegality as
warrants an interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

32. In view the aforesaid facts, I am
of the view that the impugned orders dated
13.08.2021 and 27.09.2021 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad in
Case No.187 of 2020 do not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity. The revision
filed against the aforesaid orders lacks
merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A208
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2022 &
25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1430 of 2021

Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya (Minor)
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Yadavendra Dwivedi, Sri Dhirendra
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Hari Krishna Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Vineet Vikram, Sri Vinod Kumar
Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Revision - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 392, 364, 376D & 506 - The Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5G, 6
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 161 , 164 - Juvenile Justice (care
and protection of children ) Act , 2015 -
Section 18(1)(g) - maximum three years
institutional incarceration permissible for
a juvenile - juvenile has right to be
released
on
bail
where
a
similarly
circumstanced adult offender had been
extended that liberty . (Para - 17,25)

Revisionist applied for bail before Juvenile
Justice Board - rejected - preferred an appeal
under Section 101 of the Act - dismissed - filed
present criminal revision - revisionist already
undergone
half
of
the
imprisonment/
institutional incarceration - co-accused already
granted bail - revisionist have identical role.
(Para - 18,20,25)

HELD:-Once the co-accused has been admitted
to bail, who is adult, no justification to
additionally test the case of the revisionist with
reference to the requirements of the proviso to
sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Both
the
Courts
below
passed
the
impugned
judgment and orders in cursory manner without
placing due reliance on the report submitted by
the District Probation Officer. Impugned orders
cannot be sustained. Liable to be set aside and
reversed. Revisionist may be released on
bail.(Para - 25,28)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526