# Ketan Rastogi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1314 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ketan-rastogi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53867
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

order passed by a co-ordinate Bench on the
basis of a verified compromise, allowing a
criminal writ petition and quashing criminal
proceedings, was maintainable on the ground of
9 All. Ketan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1147
subsequent developments, including dismissal of
a matrimonial case under Section 11 of the
Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955,
and
alleged
frustration of the compromise.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Criminal
proceedings - Compromise - Quashing of
FIR - Recall of order - Subsequent
events - Scope of recall jurisdiction -
Matrimonial disputes - Section 11 Hindu
Marriage
Act
-
No
interference
warranted.

Held:
The criminal writ petition had earlier been
allowed by a co-ordinate Bench on 09.01.2025
on the basis of a mutual compromise dated
17.02.2024, duly verified by the Senior
Registrar of the Court. The compromise clearly
recorded settlement of all disputes between the
parties and withdrawal/quashing of criminal
proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord.
[Paras 4-6]
An order passed on the basis of a voluntary,
verified compromise between the parties
cannot be recalled merely on the ground of
subsequent judicial developments, unless it
is shown that the order was obtained by fraud,
misrepresentation, or suppression of material
facts. No such allegation or material was
established in the present case. [Paras 17-18]
The subsequent dismissal of a matrimonial case
under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 by the Family Court, even if it
resulted in alleged ambiguity regarding marital
status, did not furnish a valid ground for recall
of the High Court's earlier order, particularly
when the legality or correctness of the Family
Court's order was not under challenge before
the High Court. [Paras 7-9, 16]
The Court reiterated the settled legal position
that a void marriage under Section 11 of
the Hindu Marriage Act is void ipso jure from
inception;
however,
questions
relating
to
marital status and declaration thereof must be
adjudicated by a competent civil/family
court in appropriate proceedings and cannot be
incidentally decided in a recall application arising
out of criminal writ jurisdiction. [Paras 12-15]
In the absence of any jurisdictional error, fraud,
or miscarriage of justice, the recall of an order
passed by a co-ordinate Bench on the basis of a
lawful
compromise
was
held
to
be
impermissible.
The
recall
application
was
accordingly rejected. [Paras 17-18] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Deoki
Panjhiyara
v.
Shashi
Bhushan
Narayan Azad, (2013) 2 SCC 137 - relied
on;
Yamunabai
Anantrao
Adhav
v.
Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC
530 - relied on; M. M. Malhotra v. Union
of India, (2005) 8 SCC 351 - relied on; A.
Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2011) 7 SCC 616 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Criminal writ petition; Compromise; Quashing of
FIR; Recall of order; Subsequent developments;
Matrimonial dispute; Section 11 Hindu Marriage
Act; Void marriage; Scope of recall jurisdiction;
Article 226.

Case Arising From
Order dated 09.01.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 1314 of 2024,
whereby FIR bearing Case Crime No. 216 of
2021,
Police
Station
Thakurganj,
District
Lucknow, and all consequential proceedings
were quashed on the basis of compromise
between the parties.

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Mohd. Ghayasuddin
Khan, Sri Lav Singh, Sri Shyam Narain Mishra
For Opposite Party No. 4 / Applicant: Sri Manish
Soni
For the State: Govt. Advocate

## Text

1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
बनाम पंजाब राज्य और नरेश कुमार यादव बनाम रवींर कुमार)
में मदए गए मनणटय , जो ऐसी प्रमतबंधात्मक शतें या अमग्रम
ज़मानत देने को एक मनमश्चत अवमध तक सीममत करने वाली
शतें मनधाटररत करते हैं, एत्‌द्वारा खाररज मकए जाते हैं।"

13. उपरोि तथ्यों के दृमष्गत मवद्वान अपर सत्र
न्यायाधीश ने मवमध-व्यवटथा का समयक रूप से अनुपालन
नहीं मकया है।

14. जबमक प्रटतुत प्रकरण में प्राथी को मात्र सहअमभयुि के अमभरक्षा में मदए गए बयान के आधार पर आरोपी
बनाया जा रहा है तथा उि के अमतररि प्राथी की प्रश्नगत प्रकरण
में संमलप्ततता दशाटनें के मलए कोई अन्य वैधामनक आधार नहीं है,
न्यायालय का मत है मक प्राथी अमग्रम जमानत पाने का अमधकारी
है।

15. तद््‌नुसार अमग्रम जमानत प्राथटना-पत्र स्िीकमर
मकया जाता है।

16. उपरोि मुकदमा अपराध संख्या में आवेदक
की मगरफ्तारी /न्यायालय के समक्ष उपमटथमत की दशा में,
उसे संबंमधत थाने के भारसाधक अमधकारी / न्यायालय
की संतुमष् के अनुसार व्यमिगत बंध पत्र एवं दी प्रमतभू
प्रटतुत करने पर परीक्षण के अंमतम रूप से मनटतारण तक,
मनम्न शतों के अधीन अमग्रम जमानत पर ररहा मकया
जाएगाैः-

क- आवेदक, यमद आवमयक होगा तो पुमलस
अमधकारी द्वारा जॉच हेतु अपेमक्षत समय पर उपमटथत होगा।

ख- आवेदक मामले के तथ्यों से पररमचत मकसी
व्यमि या पुमलस अमधकाररयों को प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रूप से
कोई धमकी, वादा या प्रलोभन नहीं देगा मजससे मक वह ऐसे
तथ्य को न्यायालय के समक्ष या मकसी पुमलस अमधकारी के
समक्ष प्रकट न करने पर मान जाए।

ग- आवेदक अदालत की पूवट अनुममत के मबना
भारत नहीं छोडेगा;

घ- आवेदक को प्रत्येक मनधाटररत मतमथ पर
रायल कोटट के समक्ष उपमटथत होना होगा, जब तक मक
व्यमिगत उपमटथमत से छूट न दी गयी हो;

ङ- आवेदक अमभयोजन पक्ष के गवाह पर दबाव
नहीं डालेगा / धमकी नहीं देगा।

च- आवेदक मववेचना एवं मवचारण के दौरान
सहयोग करेंगे और जमानत की टवतंत्रता का दुरुपयोग नहीं
करेगा।

17. इस आदेश की एक प्रमत अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश,
कक्ष सं०-5, लखीमपुर-खीरी को प्रेमित की जाए।
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1146
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1314 of 2024

Ketan Rastogi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan, Lav Singh,
Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan, Shyam Narain
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Manish Soni, Mohit Kumar Rawat,
Saurabh Kr Shahi

Issues for Consideration
Whether an application seeking recall of an
order passed by a co-ordinate Bench on the
basis of a verified compromise, allowing a
criminal writ petition and quashing criminal
proceedings, was maintainable on the ground of
9 All. Ketan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1147
subsequent developments, including dismissal of
a matrimonial case under Section 11 of the
Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955,
and
alleged
frustration of the compromise.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Criminal
proceedings - Compromise - Quashing of
FIR - Recall of order - Subsequent
events - Scope of recall jurisdiction -
Matrimonial disputes - Section 11 Hindu
Marriage
Act
-
No
interference
warranted.

Held:
The criminal writ petition had earlier been
allowed by a co-ordinate Bench on 09.01.2025
on the basis of a mutual compromise dated
17.02.2024, duly verified by the Senior
Registrar of the Court. The compromise clearly
recorded settlement of all disputes between the
parties and withdrawal/quashing of criminal
proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord.
[Paras 4-6]
An order passed on the basis of a voluntary,
verified compromise between the parties
cannot be recalled merely on the ground of
subsequent judicial developments, unless it
is shown that the order was obtained by fraud,
misrepresentation, or suppression of material
facts. No such allegation or material was
established in the present case. [Paras 17-18]
The subsequent dismissal of a matrimonial case
under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 by the Family Court, even if it
resulted in alleged ambiguity regarding marital
status, did not furnish a valid ground for recall
of the High Court's earlier order, particularly
when the legality or correctness of the Family
Court's order was not under challenge before
the High Court. [Paras 7-9, 16]
The Court reiterated the settled legal position
that a void marriage under Section 11 of
the Hindu Marriage Act is void ipso jure from
inception;
however,
questions
relating
to
marital status and declaration thereof must be
adjudicated by a competent civil/family
court in appropriate proceedings and cannot be
incidentally decided in a recall application arising
out of criminal writ jurisdiction. [Paras 12-15]
In the absence of any jurisdictional error, fraud,
or miscarriage of justice, the recall of an order
passed by a co-ordinate Bench on the basis of a
lawful
compromise
was
held
to
be
impermissible.
The
recall
application
was
accordingly rejected. [Paras 17-18] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Deoki
Panjhiyara
v.
Shashi
Bhushan
Narayan Azad, (2013) 2 SCC 137 - relied
on;
Yamunabai
Anantrao
Adhav
v.
Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC
530 - relied on; M. M. Malhotra v. Union
of India, (2005) 8 SCC 351 - relied on; A.
Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2011) 7 SCC 616 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Criminal writ petition; Compromise; Quashing of
FIR; Recall of order; Subsequent developments;
Matrimonial dispute; Section 11 Hindu Marriage
Act; Void marriage; Scope of recall jurisdiction;
Article 226.

Case Arising From
Order dated 09.01.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 1314 of 2024,
whereby FIR bearing Case Crime No. 216 of
2021,
Police
Station
Thakurganj,
District
Lucknow, and all consequential proceedings
were quashed on the basis of compromise
between the parties.

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Mohd. Ghayasuddin
Khan, Sri Lav Singh, Sri Shyam Narain Mishra
For Opposite Party No. 4 / Applicant: Sri Manish
Soni
For the State: Govt. Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

(Civil
Misc.
Application
No.
IA/5/2025-Application
for
Recall
of
order dated 09.01.2025)

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Saurabh
Kumar Shahi & Shri Mohit Kumar Rawat,
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advocates on behalf of writ petitioners is
taken on record.

2. Heard, Shri Manish Soni, learned
counsel for applicant/opposite party no. 4
in the writ petition, Shri Saurabh Kumar
Shahi and Shri Mohit Kumar Rawat
learned counsels for the petitioners.

3. By means of the instant application,
Smt. Mohini Verma the applicant / opposite
party no. 4, has prayed for the Recall of the
Order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court comprising of
Hon'ble Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, J. and
Hon'ble Mr. Om Prakash Shukla, J. and for
the restoration of the case to its original
number and to be heard and decided on
merits afresh.

4. Record of the writ petition as
available before us shows that the coordinate Bench of this Court vide Order
dated 09.01.2025 decided the writ petition
on the basis of a mutual agreement arrived
between the litigating parties and allowed
the same. The writ petitioner and the
applicant herein / opposite party no.4
amicably settled their disputes in the
presence of their parents and entered a
compromise by executing a compromise
deed dated 17.02.2024. The same is on
record.

5. The contents of the aforesaid
compromise
dated
17.02.2024
are
reproduced
herein
below
for
ready
reference:

"हम उभयपक्षकार उपरोि सुलहनामा की मनम्न शतों
के अंतटगत पाबंद होते है: -

1. यह मक प्रथमपक्ष एवं मद्वतीयपक्ष का मववाह
मदनांक 28.06.2020 को महन्दू रीमत ररवाज के अनुसार दोनो
पक्षकारों की उपमटथमत एवं सहममत के अनुसार सम्पन्न सम्पन्न हुआ
था।

2. यह मक मववाह के बाद मद्वतीयपक्ष मवदा होकर
प्रथमपक्ष के मनवास टथान पर आयी और दोनो पक्षकारों द्वारा अपने-
अपने पमत-पत्नी के कतटव्यों का मनवाटहन मकया गया।

3. यह मक उभयपक्षकारों के मध्य कुछ समय पश्चात
आचार-मवचार न ममल पाने के कारण पक्षकारों के मध्य मनमुटाव व
कटुता उत्पन्न होने लगी तथा पक्षकारों के मध्य मनमुटाव व कटुता
इतनी अमधक उत्पन्न हो गयी मक पक्षकार मदनांक 27.07.2020
से अलग-अलग रहकर मनवास करने लगे।

4. यह मक इस दौरान मद्वतीयपक्ष ने थाना-ठाकुरगंज
लखनऊ में प्रथमपक्ष व उसके पररवार वालो के मवरूद्ध ररपोटट
मुकदमा सूचना प्रथम संख्या-431/2020, अंतटगत अपराध धारा
498ए, 323, 504, आई०पी०सी० व 3/4 डी०पी० एक्ट
संबंमधत थाना-ठाकुरगंज लखनऊ में दजट करायी जो न्यायालय
श्रीमान ए०सी० जे०एम० (सी०बी०आई०) अयोध्या प्रकरण में अभी
मवचाराधीन है।

5. यह मक प्रथमपक्ष ने उपरोि मववाह को
शून्यकरणीय घोमित मकये जाने हेतु मद्वतीयपक्ष के मवरुद्ध एक वाद
अंतटगत धारा-11 महन्दू मववाह अमधमनयम-1955 दामखल मकया
हुआ है जो वतटमान में माननीय न्यायालय अपर प्रधान न्यायाधीश
कक्ष संख्या-6 पाररवाररक न्यायालय लखनऊ में मवचाराधीन है।

6. यह मक मद्वतीयपक्ष ने उपरोि मववाह मवच्छेदन
की मडिी प्राप्त करने हेतु प्रथमपक्ष के मवरूद्ध एक वाद अंतटगत धारा-
13 महन्दू मववाह अमधमनयम का वाद दामखल मकया हुआ है जो
वतटमान में माननीय न्यायालय अपर प्रधान न्यायाधीश कक्ष संख्या-8
पाररवाररक न्यायालय लखनऊ में मवचाराधीन है।

7. यह मक प्रथमपक्ष की मााँ श्रीमती मंजू रटतोगी द्वारा
मद्वतीयपक्ष व उसकी मााँ मीना वमाट के मवरूद्ध एक पररवाद दामखल
मकया हुआ है जो वतटमान में माननीय न्यायालय अपर मुख्य न्यामयक
ममजटरेट पंचम लखनऊ के समक्ष मवचाराधीन है।

8. यह मक मद्वतीयपक्ष ने थाना-ठाकुरगंज लखनऊ में
प्रथमपक्ष व उसके पररवार वालो के मवरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना ररपोटट
अपराध संख्या-216/2021 अंतटगत धारा-392, 354, 506,
9 All. Ketan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1149
504, 323 आई०पी०सी० संबंमधत थाना-ठाकुरगंज लखनऊ में
कदजट कराई है मजसके संबंध में आरोप पत्र न्यायालय में प्रटतुत नहीं
मकया गया है।

9. यह मक उभयपक्षकारों एवं मद्वतीयपक्ष के ररमतेदारों
एवं शुभमचन्तको तथा पाररवाररक सदटयों व उभयपक्षकारों के
अमधविा महोदय ने ममल बैठकर एवं वाताटलाप करके मववाद को
मनपटाने का प्रयास मकया परन्तु उभयपक्षकार मकसी भी दशा में पमतपत्नी के रूप में एक साथ रहकर वैवामहक जीवन मनवाटहन करने को
तैयार नही हुये है।

10. यह मक मद्वतीयपक्ष, प्रथमपक्ष से भमवष्य में कोई
मांग नहीं करेगी एवं प्रथमपक्ष भी भमवष्य में मद्वतीयपक्ष से कोई मांग
नहीं करेगा न ही भारत विट के मकसी भी न्यायालय में कोई भी
पक्षकार वाद दायर करेगा, यमद ऐसा कोई भी पक्षकार करता है तो
इस सुलहनामा के सापेक्ष में मनरटत व शून्य माना जायेगा।

11. यह मक मववाह में एक दूसरे पक्षकार द्वारा मदये गये
सामान का आदान-प्रदान के संबंध में कोई भी लेन-देन शेि नहीं रह गया है।

12. यह मक उपरोि मुकदमा मनटताररत होने के
पश्चात उभयपक्षकार अपना-अपना अन्यंत्र मववाह करने के मलये
टवतंत्र होगें मजस पचर मकसी भी पक्षकार को आपमत्त करने का
अमधकार नहीं होगा।

13. यह मक उभयपक्षकारों द्वारा एक दूसरे पर
दामखल मकये गये वादों को बल न देते हुये सुलह समझौते के आधार
पर समाप्त करा लेगें एवं समाप्त कराने में उभयपक्षकार एक दूसरे का
सहयोग प्रदान करेंगे। तथा दामखल वाद अंतटगत धारा-1। महन्दू
मववाह अमधमनयम-1955 जोमक वतटमान में माननीय अपर प्रधान
न्यायाधीश पाररवाररक न्यायालय कक्ष संख्या-6 पाररवाररक
न्यायालय लखनऊ में मवचाराधीन है को गुणदोि के आधार पर
मनणीत कराने में पूणट सहयोग प्रदान करेंगे।

14. यह मक उि मुकदमा मनणीत होने के पश्चात
पक्षकार टवंय एक दूसरे के पररवार के मवरूद्ध कोई भी
दीवानी/फौजदारी का वाद मकसी भी न्यायालय में दामखल नहीं करेगें।

अतैः आज मदनांक 17.02.2024 को मबना मकसी
जोर दबाव हम पक्षकारों द्वारा यह सुलहनामा समक्ष गवाहों की
मौजूदगी में अपने-अपने हटताक्षर कर मनष्पामदत कर मदया तामक
सनद रहे और समय पर काम आवे। "

6. The aforesaid compromise dated
17.02.2024 was duly verified by the Senior
Registrar of this Court on 13.12.2024 under
the orders of this Court dated 23.02.2024
thereafter the Writ Petition was allowed
vide Order dated 09.01.2025 pursuant to
the said compromise. The extract of the
Order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court is reproduced
here-in-below: -

"Supplementary Affidavit filed
today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

In the supplementary affidavit
filed today, the petitioners have specifically
stated that the Suit No. 225 of 2022, under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed before the family
court
was
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution on 09.08.2024. The plaintiff
has not filed any recall application to get
the said order dated 09.08.2024 recalled
nor the same would be recalled.

Learned counsel for the parties
also state that the parties have settled their
dispute amicably and submitted their deed
of compromise which is on record as
Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The
report of the Senior Registrar of this Court
dated 13.12.2024 is on record, according to
which he has verified the compromise on
13.12.2024.

According to the terms of the
compromise, parties have decided to
withdraw all the cases filed by them against
each other including First Information
Report dated 09.04.2021 bearing Case
Crime No.0216 of 2021, under Sections
323,504,506,392,354 I.P.C., Police Station
Thakurganj, District Lucknow.
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Intent is clear, the informant -
Smt. Mohini Verma, who is a signatory to
the compromise, does not want to press the
FIR, therefore, no purpose would be served
in allowing the proceedings even if charge
sheet has been filed before the court below
to go on considering the nature of the
dispute.

Accordingly, the impugned FIR,
which is the basis to serve consequential
proceedings of investigation and thereafter
filing of charge sheet, if any, is hereby
quashed. Consequently, all proceedings
taken consequent to the lodging of the FIR
including charge sheet, if any, filed before
the court below stand quashed.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.

The Senior Registrar of this Court
shall communicate this order to the court
concerned
for
correcting
its
record,
accordingly.

Learned AGA shall communicate
this order to the investigating officer."

7. It has been brought to the notice
of this Court by way of the instant Recall
Application dated 27.05.2025 that the
learned Family Court vide Order dated
06.05.2025 dismissed a pending case
having Suit No. 2404 of 2020 filed by the
petitioner under Section 11 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (Ketan Rastogi v.
Smt. Mohini Verma). Photostat copy of
the said judgement and order has been
placed before us for perusal which goes
to show that the learned Additional
Principal
Judge-VI,
Family
Court,
Lucknow dismissed the case, taking into
account the fact that the parties have
settled their dispute before the High
Court and further that the plaintiff,
namely, Ketan Rastogi has failed to
establish his claim as made in the plaint.
The
relevant
portion
of
the
said
judgement and order 06.05.2025 is
extracted herein below for convenience:

"........... चूंमक उभय पक्षों के मध्य लेन देन से
सम्बमन्धत मववाद सुलहनामें द्वारा समाप्त कर मलया गया है। अतैः
उपरोि समटत तथ्यों व पररमटथमतयों को दृमष्गत रखते हुए वादी
द्वारा यामचत उपरोि अनुतोि प्रदान मकये जाने का कोई औमचत्य
नहीं है।

प्रटतुत प्रकरण में वादी अपने कथन को सामबत नहीं
कर पाया है। वाद मबन्दु संख्या-1 भी उसके मवरूद्ध मनणीत हुआ है।
अतैः उपरोि समटत तथ्यों व पररमटथमतयों को दृमष्गत रखते हुए
न्यायालय के मतानुसार वादी मकसी अनुतोि को प्राप्त करने का
अमधकारी नहीं है। तदनुसार वाद मबन्दु संख्या-2 वादी के मवरूद्ध
मनणीत मकया जाता है।

प्रटतुत वाद में वाद मबन्दु संख्या-1 व 2 वादी के
मवरूद्ध मनणीत हुआ है तथा वादी मकसी अन्य अनुतोि को प्राप्त करने
का अमधकारी नहीं पाया गया है अतैः समटत तथ्यों व पररमटथमतयों
व पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अमभलेखां व दटतावेजी साक्ष्य के
अवलोकन के उपरान्त न्यायालय के मतानुसार प्रटतुत वाद अन्तगटत
धारा-11 महन्दू मववाह अमधमनयम 1955 मनरटत मकए जाने योग्य
है।

आदेश

वादी केतन रटतोगी द्वारा प्रमतवामदनी श्रीमती मोमहनी
वमाट उफट सना फामतमा के मवरुद्धं प्रटतुत वाद अन्तगटत धारा-11
महन्दू मववाह अमधमनयम 1955 मनरटत मकया जाता है।

पत्रावली मनयमानुसार दामखल दफतर हो ।"

8. Since, the correctness and legality
of the aforesaid Judgement and Order dated
06.05.2025 passed by the Learned Family
Court under section 11 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 is not under challenge
before us, as such, there is no occasion for
us to enter into the merits of the same, in
the present proceeding.
9 All. Ketan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1151

9. Contention of the learned counsel
for the opposite party no.4/Applicant
herein, is that as per the terms of the
aforesaid compromise, the opposite party
no.4 bonafidely withdrew her petition filed
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 from the learned Family Court
but after the passing of the Order dated
06.05.2025
whereby
the
petitioner's
application under Section 11 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 has been rejected, the
marital-status of the Applicant / opposite
party no. 4 has fallen in dilemma and the
purpose of the aforesaid settlement and
compromise dated 17.02.2024 has been
frustrated.

10. The uncontroverted facts that
emerged out of the submissions advanced
by the learned counsels for the parties are
that (i) the Applicant herein namely Smt.
Mohni Verma entered into matrimonial
relationship with one Dr. Zafar Sayeed
through
Nikah
on
06.07.2013
after
embracing Islam and opted Sana Fatima as
her name (ii) the marriage of the petitioner
namely Ketan Rastogi was solemnized as
per
the
Hindu
rites
at
Ramjanki
Dharmshala at Lucknow with Smt. Mohini
Verma on 28.06.2020 (iii) divorce petition
seeking divorce from her earlier husband
namely Dr. Zafar Sayeed was filed in the
month of August 2020 and the same was
decreed on 19.01.2021 by the Court of
Additional Principal Judge- X, Family
Court, Lucknow.

11. None of the parties who are
present-in-person before this Court could
furnish a particular date as to when the
Applicant / opposite party no.4 again came
back in the fold of Hindu religion. On a
pointed query as to how marriage could
have taken place in accordance with the
Hindu methodology, between the persons
with different religion, neither the learned
Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties
nor the parties themselves could give any
satisfactory reply.

12. Be that as it may, we at this stage
do not find it appropriate to delve into
factual matrix of the case to decide the
disputed issues involved in the matter while
holding the present roaster of Criminal
Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. However, it would not be out of
place to mention the settled law on the
subject as under:

Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 deals with the void marriages.
For a ready reference the same is quoted
hereinbelow: -

"11.
Void
Marriages-
Any
marriage
solemnized
after
the
commencement of this Act shall be null
and void and may, on a petition presented
by either party thereto against the other
party, be so declared by a decree of nullity
if it contravenes any one of the conditions
specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of
section 5."

Section
5(i)
of
the
Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 provides that a
marriage may be solemnized between two
Hindus, if neither party has a spouse living
at the time of marriage.

Thus, the necessary conditions
for a lawful wedlock under this provision is
that neither of the parties should have a
spouse living at the time of marriage and
mandatorily they are Hindus. The marriage
in contravention of this condition is void
ipso jure in terms of Section 11 read with
Section 5 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and non-existent in the eyes of law
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being void from its very inception. Further,
a marriage which is void ab initio does not
alter or affect the status of the parties, nor
does it create between them any rights and
obligations which must be normally arisen
from a valid marriage, except such rights as
are expressly recognized by the Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Deoki
Panjhiyara
versus
Shahshi
Bhushan Narayan Azad & Another,
reported in 2013 (2) SCC 137, held as
follows:

"Admittedly, both the appellant
and the respondent are governed by the
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act makes it clear that a marriage
solemnised after the commencement of the
Act "shall be null and void and may, on a
petition presented by either party thereto
against the other party, be so declared by a
decree of nullity if it contravenes any one
of the conditions so specified in clauses (i),
(iv) and (v) of Section 5."

13. While considering the provisions
of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav versus
Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another;
reported in (1988) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 530 has taken the view that a
marriage covered by Section 11 is voidipso-jure, that is, void from the very
inception. Such a marriage has to be
ignored as not existing in law at all. It was
further held by this Court that a formal
declaration of the nullity of such a marriage
is not a mandatory requirement though
such an option is available to either of the
parties to a marriage. It must, however, be
noticed that in the case of Yamunabai
(supra) also there was no dispute between
the parties either as regards the existence or
the validity of the first marriage on the
basis of which the second marriage was
held to be ipso jure void. A similar view
has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a later decision pronounced in the
case of M. M. Malhotra versus Union of
India and others; reported in (2005) 8
Supreme Court Cases 351, wherein the
view expressed in Yamunabai (supra) was
also noticed and reiterated. It is notable that
the view expressed by Hon'ble The Apex
Court in the case of M.M. Malhotra
(supra) was rendered in the situation where
the fact i.e. previous marriage was admitted
by the lady and there was no dispute with
regard to the factum of the earlier marriage
of one of the spouses, leading to a
declaration of the invalidity of the marriage
between the parties. Paragraph 10 of the
judgement passed in M.M. Malhotra
(supra) is extracted here in below:

"10. For appreciating the status
of a Hindu woman marrying a Hindu male
with a living spouse some of the provisions
of
the
Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955
(hereinafter referred to as "the Marriage
Act") have to be examined. Section 11 of
the Marriage Act declares such a marriage
as null and void in the following terms:

"11.
Void
marriages.-Any
marriage
solemnised
after
the
commencement of this Act shall be null
and void and may, on a petition presented
by either party thereto against the other
party, be so declared by a decree of nullity
if it contravenes any one of the conditions
specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of
Section 5."

Clause (i) of Section 5 lays down,
for a lawful marriage, the necessary
condition that neither party should have a
spouse living at the time of the marriage. A
9 All. Ketan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1153
marriage in contravention of this condition,
therefore, is null and void. By reason of the
overriding effect of the Marriage Act as
mentioned in Section 4, no aid can be taken
of the earlier Hindu law or any custom or
usage as a part of that law Inconsistent with
any provision of the Act. So far as Section
12 is concerned, it is confined to other
categories
of
marriages
and
is
not
applicable to one solemnised in violation of
Section 5(i) of the Act. Sub-section (2) of
Section 12 puts further restrictions on such
a right. The cases covered by this section
are not void ab initio, and unless all the
conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled
and the aggrieved party exercises the right
to avoid it, the same continues to be
effective.
The
marriages
covered
by
Section 11 are void ipso jure, that is, void
from the very inception, and have to be
ignored as not existing in law at all, if and
when such a question arises. Although the
section permits a formal declaration to be
made on the presentation of a petition, it is
not essential to obtain in advance such a
formal declaration from a court in a
proceeding specifically commenced for the
purpose. The provisions of Section 16,
which is quoted below, also throw light on
this aspect:

"16. Legitimacy of children of
void
and
voidable
marriages.-(1)
Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and
void under Section 11, any child of such
marriage who would have been legitimate
if the marriage had been valid, shall be
legitimate, whether such child is born
before or after the commencement of the
Marriage Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1976
(68 of 1976), and whether or not a decree
of nullity is granted in respect of that
marriage under this Act and whether or not
the marriage is held to be void otherwise
than on a petition under this Act.

(2) Where a decree of nullity is
granted in respect of a voidable marriage
under Section 12, any child begotten or
conceived before the decree is made, who
would have been the legitimate child of the
parties to the marriage if at the date of the
decree it had been dissolved instead of
being annulled, shall be deemed to be their
legitimate child notwithstanding the decree
of nullity.

(3) Nothing contained in subsection (1) or sub-section (2) shall be
construed as conferring upon any child of a
marriage which is null and void or which is
annulled by a decree of nullity under
Section 12, any rights in or to the property
of any person, other than the parents, in any
case where, but for the passing of this Act,
such child would have been incapable of
possessing or acquiring any such rights by
reason of his not being the legitimate child
of his parents."

(emphasis supplied)

Sub-section (1), by using the
words italicised above clearly implies that a
void marriage can be held to be so without
a prior formal declaration by a court in a
proceeding. While dealing with cases
covered by Section 12, sub-section (2)
refers to a decree of nullity as an essential
condition and sub-section (3) prominently
brings out the basic difference in the
character of void and voidable marriages as
covered respectively by Sections 11 and 12.
It is also to be seen that while the
legislature has considered it advisable to
uphold the legitimacy of the paternity of a
child born out of a void marriage, it has not
extended a similar protection in respect of
the mother of the child. The marriage of the
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant must, therefore, be treated as null
and void from its very inception."

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of A. Subash Babu versus State of
Andhra Pradesh & Another; reported in
(2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 616, while
dealing with the question whether the wife
of a second marriage contracted during the
validity of the first marriage of the husband
would be a "person aggrieved" under
Section 198(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to maintain a complaint alleging
commission of offences under Section 494
and 495 IPC by the husband. The passage
extracted below effectively illuminates the
issue:

"Though the law specifically does
not cast obligation on either party to seek
declaration of nullity of marriage and it
may be open to the parties even without
recourse to the Court to treat the marriage
as a nullity, such a course is neither prudent
nor intended and a declaration in terms of
Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act will
have to be asked for, for the purpose of
precaution and/or record. Therefore, until
the declaration contemplated by Section 11
of the Hindu Marriage Act is made by a
competent Court, the woman with whom
second marriage is solemnized continues to
be the wife within the meaning of Section
494 IPC and would be entitled to maintain
a complaint against her husband."

(emphasis supplied by this Court)

15. It goes without saying that the
declaration of the parties' marital-status,
strikes at the very core of society.
Declaration in the light of Section 11 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be made
only by a competent court of law in an
appropriate proceeding by and between the
parties and in compliance with all other
requirements of law. The courts are under
obligation to render a complete and
effective decision with regard to the marital
status of the parties.

16. Be that as it may, as we have
observed in the preceding paragraph that in
the instant proceeding wherein only the
above mentioned Application for Recall of
the order dated 09.01.2025 is before us for
consideration and in the absence of any
material before this Court and more
particularly when the same is not before us
for adjudication, we refrain ourselves to
record any finding on the merits and
correctness of the Judgement and Order
dated 06.05.2025, passed by the learned
Family Court under Section 11 of the
Hindu Marriage Act 1955 in Case No.2404
/2020, at this stage.

17. Taking into consideration the
contentions raised by the Opposite Party
No.4 / Applicant herein, seeking recall of
the Order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court comprising
of Hon'ble Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, J. and
Hon'ble Mr. Om Prakash Shukla, J.
whereby the Writ Petition having Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No.1314 of 2024 was
allowed
consequent
to
the
amicable
settlement of dispute between the parties
through
Compromise
Deed
dated
17.02.2024; we find no good ground
warranting this Court to interfere with the
said Order dated 09.01.2025, merely on the
premise of some subsequent development,
that too, a judicial pronouncement dated
06.05.2025 rendered by a competent Court
of law.

18.
Accordingly,
the
instant
Application for Recall dated 27.05.2025, is
consigned
to
record
as
rejected.
9 All. Abhishek Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1155

19. Needless to say that in any case if
the litigating parties feel aggrieved by the
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
dated
06.05.2025
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Principal Judge-VI, Family
Court, Lucknow, it is open for them to
avail appropriate legal recourse in respect
of the same in the manner as prescribed
under law.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1155
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2024

Abhishek Singh Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
S.M. Iqbal Hasan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Purushottam Pandey

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether an application for maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable
against a minor husband, and whether
recovery proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C.
are
barred
on
that
ground;
(ii) Whether the quantum of maintenance
awarded required modification in light of the
husband attaining majority during proceedings
and the principles governing assessment of
income and proportionality.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.
125, 128 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - ss.
10, 18 - Maintenance - Proceedings
against minor husband - Maintainability
-
Attainment
of
majority
-
Commencement of liability - Assessment
of income - Proportionality - Revisional
interference - Modification of quantum.

Held:
Proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are governed exclusively by
the Cr.P.C. and not by the Code of Civil
Procedure. There is no statutory bar under
Section 125 or Section 128 Cr.P.C. against
initiation of maintenance proceedings against a
husband who was minor at the time of filing of
the
application.
The
objection
as
to
maintainability on the ground of minority was
therefore unsustainable. [Paras 14-17]

For
determination
of
age,
high
school
examination certificate carries primacy. On the
basis of such certificate, the revisionist was
found to have attained the age of majority on
01.01.2021. A minor husband cannot be
presumed to have sufficient means; however,
upon attaining majority, the legal obligation to
maintain his wife and minor child arises. [Paras
22-25]

In absence of proof of actual income, the
Court is entitled to make a reasonable
estimation of earning capacity, particularly
where the husband is able-bodied. The Court
applied settled principles that maintenance
should
be
realistic
and
proportionate,
ordinarily not exceeding 25% of the net
income, and must avoid both excessiveness
and inadequacy. [Paras 27-29]

The maintenance awarded by the Family Court
was found to be disproportionate to the
estimated income. Accordingly, the order was
modified, fixing maintenance at ₹2,500 per
month to the wife and ₹2,000 per month to the
minor daughter, payable from 01.01.2021, i.e.,
the date on which the revisionist attained
majority.
Arrears
were
directed
to
be
recalculated accordingly, with adjustment of any
excess payment. [Paras 29-32]

Criminal revision partly allowed to the above
extent. [Para 32] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 -
applied; Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr.) v. Raj
Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129-relied on.