# Brijmohan Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 863
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5100 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijmohan-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54021
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1 All. Brijmohan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
863

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 863
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5100 of 2022

Brijmohan ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the impugned order passed by the Family Court u/s 125 Cr.P.C., granting
maintenance to the wife, suffers from any perversity, illegality, warranting interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly in light of husband's contentions regarding alleged
desertion by the wife, her purported independent income, and his asserted lack of sufficient
means.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 125 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss. 3⁄4 - Maintenance - Quantum of - Revisional jurisdiction -
Scope of - The criminal revision arose out of proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C., wherein opposite
party/wife instituted a maintenance application against her husband/revisionist before the
Family Court asserting that their marriage was solemnized on 17.02.2012 according to Hindu
rites and that subsequent to marriage she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on
account of dowry demands, ultimately being ousted from her matrimonial home on 23.07.2013 -
She further alleged that an FIR under various sections of IPC and sections of Dowry Prohibition
Act had been lodged against the husband and his family members and that she had no
independent source of income to sustain herself, whereas the husband was possessed of
sufficient means - The husband denied the allegations, contending that she had deserted him
without sufficient cause and that she was educated and earning through tuition and tailoring
work, thereby disentitling her from maintenance - Upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance, which
order was assailed by the husband before the High Court. (E-11)

Held: The revisionist has sufficient source of income and he is liable to maintain his wife/opposite party no.2
and the finding of the learned Trial Court is perfectly justified and does not suffer from any infirmity or
illegality - A perusal of the impugned order shows that opposite party no.2 was ordered maintenance of
Rs.3000/- per months from the date of application up to the date of order and Rs.5000/- per month from the
date of order - Looking into the status of both the parties, the maintenance amount awarded by Trail Court is
not excessive - Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality or infirmity - Hence,
no interference is warranted - As a result, the revision, being devoid of merits, is dismissed and the impugned
order dated 06.09.2022 is affirmed - Accordingly, the interim order passed on 04.04.2023 is vacated. [Paras
34 to 36]

Case Law Cited
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Another, (2015) 3 SCC 123; State of Kerala v.
Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452; Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq (1987) 1 SCC
624; Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC 375; Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316;
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353; Manish Jain v. Akansha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801;
Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303; Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v.
Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and Another, AIR (1981) SC 1982; - referred to

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

List of Keywords
Criminal Revision; Family Court; Maintenance Case; ss. 125, 125(3) Cr.P.C.; Interim maintenance; Monthly
allowance; Date of application; Matrimonial home; Physical and mental torture; Additional dowry; Medical
examination; Injury report; FIR; Charge-sheet; False and concocted allegations; Recovery warrant; Mediation;
Mediation and Conciliation Centre; Interim order; Perversity; Illegality; Infirmity; Supervisory jurisdiction;
Neglect or refusal to maintain; Sufficient means; Unable to maintain herself; Able bodied person; Voluntary
desertion; Sufficient cause; Adultery; Mutual consent; Cancellation of order; Sale deed; Ancestral property;
Co-sharers; Agricultural land; Agricultural; Quantum of maintenance; Execution of warrant; Imprisonment;
Revision dismissed.

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 5100 of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.1,
Family Court, Firozabad in Maintenance Case No. 1907 of 2014.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist:
Akhilesh Singh, Ram Pravesh Yadav, Vinay Kumar

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
Dinesh Rai, G.A., Sanjay Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjiv Kumar, J.)

1. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of Brijmohan against the judgment
and order dated 06.09.2022, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.1, Family
Court, Firozabad in Maintenance Case No. 1907 of 2014 (Smt. Dhirjesh Vs. Brijmohan), under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Makkhanpur, District Firozabad.

2. In the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court allowed maintenance
application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Smt. Dhirjesh and directed the revisionist Brijmohan
to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to her from the date of application and
Rs.5000/- per month from the date of order.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Dhirjesh filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
against the revisionist Brijmohan, alleging therein that her marriage with Brijmohan was
solemnized on 17.02.2012 as per Hindu rites. Her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and
demanded three lakhs in the form of additional dowry and started committing physical and mental
torture. Brijmohan did not maintain physical relations with her. On 23.07.2013, she was badly
1 All. Brijmohan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
865
beaten by her husband and in-laws for additional demand of dowry. Her relatives took her to
hospital at Shikohabad, District Firozabad for treatment, where she was medically examined. Her
father lodged a criminal case regarding torture for want of dowry and in that case the police has
filed charge-sheet before the competent court. The said case is pending at the stage of trial.

4. It is further alleged that her husband thrown her out of the her matrimonial home and, since
then, has not taken her care and not willing to keep her with him. She is living at her father's home.
It is further alleged that due to cruelty committed by her in-laws, she has not been able to apply for
a job. Her husband is B.Sc. graduate and his father is retired from Railways. The husband of
opposite party no. 2 has thirty bigha of agricultural land besides two beer shops and four wine
shops. Brijmohan earns about Rs.1,00,000/- per month and she wants Rs.20,000/- per month from
her husband for her maintenance, studies and to apply for a job.

5. The revisionist, Brijmohan, appeared before the court and filed his written submissions
denying all the allegations levelled against him and stated that the allegations against him are false
and concocted. Smt. Dhirjesh always quarrels with him and his family members and wanted
partition to live separately from his parents. He has no licence to run any wine shop. Further, he has
no business. His father has some land whereas Smt. Dhirjesh is engaged in making bangles and
kadas. She is a graduate women and earns about Rs.10,000/- per month from tuition and sewing
work, therefore, she is in no need to get any maintenance, as she is able to maintain herself.
Therefore, the application be rejected.

6. After exchange of pleadings, Smt. Dhirjesh appeared in witness box and examined herself
as A.P.W. 1 and produced Prem Shankar as A.P.W. 2. Besides this, she also filed some
documentary evidence in the form of copy of FIR, her own affidavits, photo-copy of four wheeler
R.C. registered in the name of Brij Mohan, photo-copy of her bank account, copy of sale deed and
injury report et cetera.

7. The revisionist Brijmohan examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and in his documentary evidence,
he has filed copy of ex-parte judgment dated 04.04.2016, copy of order sheet, copy of recovery
warrant issued in Misc. Case No. 108 of 2016, under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., photograph C.D.,
Challani order and his own affidavit et cetera.

8. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and examining the record, the learned court
came to the conclusion that, admittedly, both the parties are married to each other and the applicant
Dhirjesh is unable to maintain herself. It was also observed that opposite party Brijmohan has
means to maintain his wife Smt. Dhirjesh. It was also observed that due to mental and physical
torture committed, Smt. Dhirjesh has reasonable and sufficient cause to live separately from her
husband and, in view of the above, the maintenance application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
was partly allowed and interim order regarding maintenance passed against the revisionist
Brijmohan

9. Feeling aggrieved, this revision has been filed on the ground that the learned court has not
appreciated the evidence and material in its right perspective. Smt. Dhirjesh herself left the house
out of her own sweet will without any reasonable cause. She deserted the revisionist without any
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient cause and thus, is not liable to claim maintenance. It is also alleged that the maintenance
amount granted is excessive. The revisionist is engaged in agricultural work. It is further submitted
that the court has not assigned any specific reason in granting maintenance from the date of filing
of application. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has appeared and filed a counter affidavit on her
behalf, wherein she has denied the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist. Learned
counsel for the revisionist has filed a rejoinder affidavit.

11. During the course of hearing, this Court sent the matter for mediation before the Mediation
and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad but the mediation failed. Thereafter, on
17.02.2025, it was observed that the the revisionist had obtained interim order on 04.04.2023 and,
in spite of mediation proceedings having been failed, is not turning up to argue this matter on
merits.

12. On the last date i.e. 17.10.2025 also, none appeared on behalf of the revisionist. On
24.01.2025, it was observed by this Court that if the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
revisionist does not appear, this Court will proceed to hear and decide the matter finally, even in his
absence. Even today, nobody appears on behalf for the revisionist to press this revision, as such,
learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 are heard and this revision is decided on
merits in the absence of learned counsel for the revisionist.

13. With regard to scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in'Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Another, (2015) 3 SCC 123, held
that the High Court, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the order of
the Magistrate, unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any
relevant material. The order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible.

14. In the case of State of' Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC
452, while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction is one of supervisory, exercised for correcting the
miscarriage of justice, but the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an
appellate Court, nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction ordinarily, therefore, it
may not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion on the same, when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well
as by the Sessions Judge.

15. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order passed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance application of opposite party no.2/Dhirjesh was
allowed.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have to be dealt with by the Court. In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq
(1987) 1 SCC 624, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of
the Code, it must be remembered, are of summary nature and intended to enable destitute wives
1 All. Brijmohan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
867
and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy
manner.

17. A three Judge Bench in Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC 375, while
discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It
provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wives.

18. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of
maintenance proceedings is not to punish the husband for his past neglect, but to prevent'vagrancy
and destitution'by providing a speedy remedy for food, clothing, and shelter.

19. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

Section 125 Cr.P.C.-Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain'

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain
itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained
majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to
maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such
person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or
mother, at such monthly rate'1* * * as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such
person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in
clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that
the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:

[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 Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the
same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance
and expenses of 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 to such person.]

Explanation.--For the purposes of this Chapter,

(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875
(9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;

(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from,
her husband and has not remarried.

[(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the
application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may
be.]

(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any
such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in
the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of
each months'4[allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this
section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year
from the date on which it became due:

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living
with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal
stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is
satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation.--If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a
mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wifes refusal to live with him.

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an'5[allowance for the maintenance or the interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section
if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband,
or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section in
living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they
are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
1 All. Brijmohan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
869

20. Further in Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial
suffering of a women, who had left her matrimonial home, 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. Since it
is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children,
the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able bodied and could not
avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the Statue.

21. In Manish Jain Vs. Akansha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife would not be material while
determining the quantum of maintenance. It is not an answer to a maintenance application that his
wife is educated and can support herself. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any
source of income ipso facto does not absolve of him to main his wife, if he is able bodied and has
educational qualification (Reema Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303).

22. In view of the above legal position, the impugned order is to be examined to determine
whether it suffers from any perversity or illegality.

23. The revisionist/husband has raised three points, assailing the impugned order. Firstly, he
has raised the point that opposite party no.2/Smt. Dhirjesh voluntarily deserted the revisionist and,
therefore, is not entitled for maintenance. Secondly, the revisionist submits that opposite party no.2
has sufficient means to maintain herself. Thirdly, he contends that he has no source of income to
maintain his wife.

24. So far as the first point is concerned, it is not in dispute that the revisionist/Brijmohan and
opposite party no.2/Smt. Dhirjesh are legally wedded husband and wife. According to opposite
party no.2, after the marriage, she was thrown away from her matrimonial home and, on account of
torture committed upon her, she sustained injuries and was medically examined. Her father had
lodged an FIR registered vide Case Crime No. 606 of 2013, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the revisionist and his family
members. The Police, after investigation, have filed charge-sheet in the said crime, which is
pending at the stage of trial. Opposite party no.2 has stated that due to the torture of her husband
and in-laws, she is now residing at her parental house. In support of this, she has given her
statement on oath and has filed copy of charge-sheet.

25. The revisionist has not denied the fact that the above criminal case was lodged against him
and his family members, but has submitted that it was lodged on false and concocted facts.

26. In Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan Vs. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and Another, AIR
(1981) SC 1982, it has been held that if the wife is being tortured for want of dowry or due to the
conduct of husband, there is apprehension to the wife that she may suffer injury, then it is valid
ground for the wife to live separately from her husband.

27. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and
the legal position, held that there are valid grounds for the wife to live separately from her husband.
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The revisionist has not filed any concrete evidence to prove that opposite party no.2 had voluntarily
deserted him of her own freewill. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court does not suffer
from any perversity or infirmity.

28. With regard to the second point, it is argued on behalf of the revisionist that opposite party
no.2 is a post-graduate, having passed M.A. It is further argued that she makes bangles and kada
moreover, she gives tuition and also performs tailor work, from which she earns Rs.10,000/- per
month and therefore, she is in no need of maintenance from the revisionist. Opposite party no.2 has
denied this fact and said that she has no income to maintain herself. The revisionist has not filed
any evidence with regard to alleged income of opposite party no.2.

29. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court held that opposite party no.2 has no source of
income to maintain herself, and this view of the Trial Court also does not suffer from any infirmity.

30. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the revisionist that he has no income to maintain opposite
party no.2. On the other hand, it is alleged on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the revisionist is
graduate having passed B.Sc. His father has thirty bigha of land, besides this, the revisionist has
four liquor shops and his monthly income is about Rs.1,00,000/- per month.

31. The revisionist has denied these facts, but has admitted that he has four bigha of land, upon
which he does agricultural work. He has also admitted that he sits at his brothers shop and earns
Rs.100-150 per day. He has also admitted that he has ancestral property in his name along with
three other co-sharers. The revisionist before the Trial Court has not claimed himself as disabled to
maintain himself and his wife, however, it is before this Court that the revisionist has filed some
prescriptions and claimed that he is ill and thus, unable to earn. From the perusal of these
prescriptions, it appears that the revisionist was suffering from headache and given some
prescription. These medical papers do not show that the revisionist suffers from any such disease,
which prevents him in doing any physical labour work. Thus, the revisionist is able bodied person
and, being so, he is liable to maintain his wife.

32. Opposite party no.2, in her counter affidavit, has alleged that during the pendency of this
criminal revision, the revisionist had gifted some of his property to her to avoid paying
maintenance and also stated that during the pendency of this criminal revision, the revisionist had
purchased a commercial property along with his brother. Opposite party no.2 has filed a copy of the
sale deed. The sale deed is annexed as Annexure No.3 to her counter affidavit. In support of her
claim, the revisionist has filed a rejoinder affidavit, but has not denied this fact in it.

33. Opposite party no.2 has claimed that, in view of the order of the interim maintenance of
this Court, the revisionist has paid maintenance amount to the opposite party no.2, which further
substantiates the claim of opposite party no.2 that the revisionist has sufficient means to pay
maintenance to opposite party no.2.

34. In view of the above, the revisionist has sufficient source of income and he is liable to
maintain his wife/opposite party no.2 and the finding of the learned trial Court in this regard is
perfectly justified and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
1 All. Akash Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
871

35. A perusal of the impugned order shows that opposite party no.2 was ordered maintenance
of Rs.3000/- per months from the date of application up to the date of order and Rs.5000/- per
month from the date of order.

36. Looking into the status of both the parties, the above maintenance amount awarded by
Trail Court is not excessive. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the impugned order does not
suffer from any perversity or illegality or infirmity. Hence, no interference is warranted by this
Court. As a result, this revision, being devoid of merits, is dismissed and the impugned order dated
06.09.2022 is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the interim order passed by this Court on 04.04.2023
is vacated.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 871
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 7290 of 2025

Akash Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the learned trial court committed any illegality or material irregularity in rejecting
the discharge application of accused in a prosecution u/s 376 IPC and ss. 5/6 of POCSO Act, particularly in
light of alleged contradictions regarding the age of the prosecutrix, the medical opinion suggesting an age
approximating majority, the reliance upon educational records to determine minority, the plea of consensual
relationship, and the absence of injuries at a stage where the matter was confined to consideration of framing
of charge and not appreciation of evidence on merits.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
ss. 5/6 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 161, 164 - Discharge application - Rejection of -
Framing of charge - Scope of - According to the prosecution case, as emerging from first
information report lodged by informant - father of prosecutrix, was that the accused had enticed
away and committed sexual assault upon the minor victim - During investigation, statements of
prosecutrix u/ss. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, and medical examination was conducted -
The age of prosecutrix was determined primarily on the basis of her educational records, which
indicated that she was below eighteen years of age at the time of alleged occurrence, though the
medical opinion assessed her age to be near about majority - The accused, asserting that the
relationship was consensual and disputing the minority of prosecutrix, moved an application
seeking discharge on the ground that no prima facie case was made out, however, the trial
court, upon consideration of material collected during investigation, rejected the said
application, leading to filing of criminal revision before the High Court.(E-11)