# Lekhraj Maithil Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 402 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-17 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1104 of 2012 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lekhraj-maithil-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43544 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote under Section 127 Cr.P.C. - Validity of rejection and partial acceptance - Maintenance of major daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. read with Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Right of major unmarried daughter to maintenance when dependent on father - Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 - Divorce decree - Application of law where personal law provisions supersede criminal procedure law regarding maintenance of major daughters. REVISION ALLOWED List of Cases cited: ## Text 402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 16. The writ petition as such is held to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Criminal Revision No. 1104 of 2012 & Connected With Other Cases Lekhraj Maithil ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri H.M.B. Sinha, Smt. Archna Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate, Sri M.K. Mishra, Sri Vishal Jaiswal Maintenance of Spouse and Children - Concurrent Jurisdiction with Family Court - Application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. - Validity of rejection and partial acceptance - Maintenance of major daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. read with Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Right of major unmarried daughter to maintenance when dependent on father - Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 - Divorce decree - Application of law where personal law provisions supersede criminal procedure law regarding maintenance of major daughters. REVISION ALLOWED List of Cases cited: 1. Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohammad Quasim, 1997 SCC (6) 233 2. Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata, 2002 CJ (SC) 432 3. Raj Kumari Awasthi Vs. State of U.P., 2008(3) ALJ 100 4. Amarendra Kumar Paul Vs. Maya Paul and Others, (2009) 8 SCC 359 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. Both these revisions, arising out of the same impugned judgment, were connected and both are being hereby decided by this common judgment. 3 All. Lekhraj Maithil Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 403 2. Criminal Revision No. 1104 of 2012 has been filed by Lekhraj Maithil against the order dated 13.3.2012 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 74 of 2011 whereby the learned Judge Family Court has rejected the application moved by the revisionist under section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, for setting aside the order of maintenance granted in favour of respondents Smt. Vijaya Maithil and Km. Pragya alias Dolly, wife and minor daughter of the revisionist, respectively. 3. Criminal Revision No. 1516 of 2012 has been filed by Km. Himani @ Anjali, the major daughter of the revisionist against the same order dated 13.3.2012 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 74 of 2011, Lekhraj Maithil Vs. Smt. Vijaya Maithil and others, whereby the learned Family Judge while partly allowing the application filed by the revisionist under section 127 Cr.P.C., set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of major daughter Km. Himani. 4. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of these revisions are that an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was moved by Lekhraj Maithil (revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 1104 of 2012) before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, for quashing the order of maintenance passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of his wife Vijaya Maithil and his two daughters, Km. Himani @ Anjali, aged about 20 years, and Km. Pragya alias Dolly, aged about 13 years. The court below vide impugned order dated 13.3.2012 partly allowed the application moved under section 127 Cr.P.C. whereby denying maintenance to the elder daughter Km. Himani @ Anjali, she being major, and directing the revisionist Lekhraj Maithil to continue to pay the amount of maintenance to his wife and younger daughter as earlier directed by the court. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order Lekhraj Maithil filed Criminal Revision No. 1104 of 2012. The major daughter Km. Himani @ Anjali also, being dissatisfied by the denial of maintenance to her, filed Criminal Revision No. 1516 of 2012. 6. The revisionist Lekhraj Maithil has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the court below, without giving any attention to the fact that his wife has refused to live with him without any rhyme and reason and the revisionist at every stage had stated that he is ready to keep his wife and children with him, has dismissed his application and as his wife has herself refused to live with him, she has no right to get the maintenance. Hence, it has been prayed that the order dated 13.3.2012, which has been passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises and without application of mind, be set aside and the revision be allowed. 7. Learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for opposite parties have opposed the revision by contending that the learned court below has not acted with any irregularity or illegality. The impugned order shows that the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, has categorically recorded a finding that the wife is ready to live with her husband subject to the condition that he mends his ways and does not misbehave with his wife and daughters. The court below has also observed that the husband has not made any effort to take back his wife and daughters with him and due to maltreatment of them by the revisionist husband they 404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES have been forced to live separately. The court below has also expressed its clear view that the exparte decree under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, passed in favour of husband, is of no use because the husband has neither communicated about this decree to the wife nor he has made any effort for execution of this decree. 8. Under these circumstances the learned court below did not find any good ground to quash the order granting maintenance to the destitute wife and minor daughter and accordingly it rejected the prayer made by the husband under section 127 Cr.P.C. to cancel the grant of maintenance to the destitute wife and minor daughter. However, considering the fact that the elder daughter has become major, the court below vide impugned order stopped the maintenance granted to her. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the husband/ revisionist and having perused the record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the aforesaid decision taken by the learned court below specially in view of the fact that now the marital relation between the revisionist/ husband and respondent/ wife has been severed by judgment and decree of divorce dated 16.5.2014 passed in Divorce Petition No. 32A of 2013 filed by the revisionist- husband on 12.10.2011 in the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Singrauli, Baidhan (M.P.). The certified copy of the aforesaid judgment is available on record, which clearly shows that revisionist husband had already filed divorce petition at Singrauli, M.P., against his wife just after one month of filing the application under section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. The record shows that he had filed the application under section 127 Cr.P.C. on 1.9.2011 in Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in which the main ground taken by him for cancellation of maintenance order was that his wife is living separately without any sufficient reason though he is ready to keep her with him. However, just after one month of the filing of such application he instituted the divorce suit against her at Singrauli without even waiting for the outcome of mediation, which clearly shows that he was actually not inclined to keep her with him. 10. Under these circumstances the wife and the minor daughter living with her mother are entitled for maintenance. Accordingly Revision No. 1104 of 2012 filed by the husband- revisionist is liable to be rejected. 11. In the Revision No. 1516 of 2012, filed by the major daughter, the impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the court below has not considered the legal position that she is entitled to maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. until she gets married. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned court below, without application of its mind to this well settled legal position has passed the impugned order. It has further been contended by her learned counsel that the revisionist is an unmarried daughter and she is unable to sustain herself, hence she is entitled for maintenance. 12. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the following judgments: 3 All. Lekhraj Maithil Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 405 1. Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohammad Quasim, 1997 SCC (6) 233. 2. Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata, 2002 CJ (SC) 432. 3. Raj Kumari Awasthi Vs. State of U.P., 2008(3) ALJ 100. 13. Learned counsel for the father-Lekhraj Maithil, who is respondent no. 2, in Criminal Revision No. 1516 of 2012, has filed written arguments and has vehemently contended that the revisionist Km. Himani @ Anjali being major is not entitled to any maintenance. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Amarendra Kumar Paul Vs. Maya Paul and others, (2009)8 SCC 359 in which it has been held that once children attain majority, the provisions of section 125(1)(b) Cr.P.C. cease to apply. 14. The respondent Lekhraj Maithil has filed counter affidavit, in which nowhere it has been stated that the revisionist Km. Kimani @ Anjali has got married or she has got some job enabling her to maintain herself. 15. He has also not denied the fact that he has sufficient means to pay maintenance to his daughters while working as Executive Engineer, Power Corporation at Singrauli, M.P. The revision filed by his major daughter has been opposed by him mainly on the ground that after attaining majority, she has no right to get maintenance. 16. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and carefully perused the judgments cited by them. 17. Both the parties are Hindu. Hence provisions of Hindu Law is applicable to them. Under section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, even a major daughter is entitled to get maintenance from her father if she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property. Thus the right of a major unmarried daughter to get maintenance is recognized under the personal law applicable to the parties. 18. In the landmark case of Jagdish Jugtawat (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law that if the right of a girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized under the personal law applicable to the parties, in that case even the major daughter shall be entitled to have maintenance till she gets married. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would create inconvenience to the major daughter if she is denied maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. as she would be forced to file another petition under sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Thus in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and on a combined reading of section 125 Cr.P.C. and section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the liability of the father of providing maintenance to an unmarried dependent girl extends beyond attainment of majority. 406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 19.Although in Amrendra Kumar's case (supra) relied upon by the respondent/father, a different view has been taken by the Apex Court, yet in view of the fact that the judgment rendered in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata, 2002 CJ (SC) 432 is of the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment rendered in the case of Amarendra Kumar Paul Vs. Maya Paul and others, (2009)8 SCC 359 is a case decided by the Bench two Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court, the judgment of Jagdish Jugtawat case will prevail. 20. This Court in the case of Raj Kumari Awasthi Vs. State of U.P., 2008(3) ALJ 100 has observed as under: - "............ to expect that an unmarried daughter, who is still going to college or staying at home awaiting her marriage, and has no source of independent income to maintain herself can be denied maintenance from her father, who possesses sufficient means only because her inability to maintain herself is not due to any physical or mental abnormality as required in section 125(1)(c) of the Code would be extremely harsh and oppressive in all likelihood violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ..................................................... In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the said sub-section 125(1)(c) needs to be amended by the Legislature and the right of to be maintained by a parent having sufficient means should be provided to all unmarried daughters, even after they have attained majority, who are unable to maintain themselves. That is the only way to prevent vagrancy and destitution of the girl child, which is one of the prime objectives that these summary provisions for maintenance, which Chapter IX of the Code seeks to address." 21. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in wake of the aforesaid legal position and specially the fact that the revisionist Km. Himani @ Anjali, having no independent source of income, is unable to maintain herself whereas the respondent i.e. her father, who is an Executive Engineer in National Thermal Power Corporation has sufficient means of income, the revision filed by Km. Himani deserves to be allowed. 22. The Criminal Revision No. 1516 of 2012 filed by Km. Himani @ Anjali, major daughter, is allowed and that part of the impugned order dated 13.3.2012, which relates to denial of maintenance to the revisionist Km. Himani @ Anjali is set aside. The respondent no. 2, Lekhraj Maithil, is directed to pay to his elder daughter Km. Himani @ Anjali, the revisionist, the entire maintenance amount including arrears, as directed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, vide his order dated 6.7.2010 and to continue to pay such amount till she gets married. The arrears of maintenance in respect of Km. Himani @ Anjali shall be paid in four equal monthly instalments. The amount already paid to her by the respondent shall be adjusted in accordance with law. 23. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1104 of 2012 filed by Lekhraj Maithil is dismissed. The revisionist is directed to pay the entire amount of maintenance along with 3 All. Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 407 arrears to his wife and minor daughter, as directed by the court below, within one month from today and to continue to pay the same from month to month. The amount already paid by the revisionist Lekhraj Maithil to his wife and daughters, in compliance of the orders of various courts shall be adjusted in the amount payable by him in accordance with law. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J. Criminal Revision No. - 3261 of 2015 & Connected With Other Cases Sunil Kumar Gupta ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Shri Kamal Kishor Mishra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate Held - Para 1-2: Two criminal revisions were filed against an order dated 29.06.2015 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar. The judge rejected the government's application (under Section 321 Cr.P.C.) to withdraw prosecution and discharge 15 accused. Both revisions are being decided together. Para 3-4: The case stems from a 2008 incident where Rama Shanker (accused) was caught with Iraqi Dinars. His brother and a mob allegedly attacked the police with stones to rescue him, causing injuries and disrupting public order. A charge-sheet was filed against 15 people. Para 5: A secondary F.I.R. (Case Crime No. 314) was also filed for related offenses. Those charges, triable by a Magistrate, were allowed to be withdrawn in a separate proceeding, leading to the discharge of the accused in that specific case. Para 6-7: Following a state government decision "in public interest," the District Government Counsel (D.G.C.) moved an application to withdraw the main Sessions case (S.T. No. 40 of 2014). The trial court rejected this application. Para 8-9: Revisionists argued that the withdrawal was in the interest of justice, the currency value was low, and they were falsely implicated. The A.G.A. (State) did not actively support the trial court's rejection, merely noting the application was moved under Section 321 Cr.P.C.