# Nagendra Sirohi Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 415
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3040 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagendra-sirohi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52994
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 307- Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Section 439-Bail - Second
Bail
Application
-
Prolonged
Incarceration - Delay in Trial - Article 21
of the Constitution of India - Accused in
custody for over 7 years and 9 months -
Trial remained stalled due to pendency of
challenge to summoning order under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. before Supreme Court
- Only 3 of 16 prosecution witnesses
examined - No likelihood of conclusion of
trial in near future - Held, prolonged
detention without progress in trial is
violative of right to speedy trial under
Article 21 - Bail not to be withheld as
punishment - Bail granted. (Paras 16,17,
and 18)

HELD:
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Kalyan
Dey
Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy
AIR (2017) SC 2383 placing reliance on a earlier
judgment in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Raj
Kumari & anr.(1970) 3 SCC 129, in this case, it
was held that 25% of the husband's net salary
would be just and proper to be awarded as
maintenance to the respondent-wife. The
amount of permanent alimony awarded to the
wife must be befitting the status of the parties
and the capacity of the spouse to pay
maintenance.
Maintenance
is
always
dependent on the factual situation of the case
and the court would be justified in moulding
the claim for maintenance passed on various
factors. Therefore, without disturbing the
broad findings of fact given by learned court
below, the amount of maintenance awarded to
the applicant is being modified as below. (Para
16)

Considering the rival submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties, totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that
due to non-compliance of mandatory directions
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha &
anr.(supra)
before
the
court
below,
the
impugned judgment and gets vitiated under law.
This court in revisional stage has assured
compliance of mandatory directions of Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Rajnesh
Vs
Neha
&
anr.(supra) to avoid any further delay in final
disposal of the matter. The purpose of filing
affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities is
to clarify the stand of the parties in maintenance
case, their assets, liabilities and economic
condition show that the court may be in a
position to out the truth and come to just
decision in the case. (Para 17)

Revision application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

2 All. Nagendra Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
415
Section 319 Cr.P.C. after conclusion of
trial, resulting in conviction and sentencing
of accused persons who had already faced
trial in main S.T. No. 84 of 2006, is not
sustainable and thus cannot affirmed, the
impugned summoning order is in conflict
with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra) as
discussed above and thus vitiated by law,
consequently the impugned order deserves
to be set-aside.

20. The impugned summoning order
passed against the revisionist under Section
319 Cr.P.C. is set-aside. The revision is
accordingly allowed.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 415
REVISIONALJURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3040 of 2023

Nagendra Sirohi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Chandan Sharma, Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sanjeev Kumar

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 307- Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Section 439-Bail - Second
Bail
Application
-
Prolonged
Incarceration - Delay in Trial - Article 21
of the Constitution of India - Accused in
custody for over 7 years and 9 months -
Trial remained stalled due to pendency of
challenge to summoning order under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. before Supreme Court
- Only 3 of 16 prosecution witnesses
examined - No likelihood of conclusion of
trial in near future - Held, prolonged
detention without progress in trial is
violative of right to speedy trial under
Article 21 - Bail not to be withheld as
punishment - Bail granted. (Paras 16,17,
and 18)

HELD:
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Kalyan
Dey
Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy
AIR (2017) SC 2383 placing reliance on a earlier
judgment in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Raj
Kumari & anr.(1970) 3 SCC 129, in this case, it
was held that 25% of the husband's net salary
would be just and proper to be awarded as
maintenance to the respondent-wife. The
amount of permanent alimony awarded to the
wife must be befitting the status of the parties
and the capacity of the spouse to pay
maintenance.
Maintenance
is
always
dependent on the factual situation of the case
and the court would be justified in moulding
the claim for maintenance passed on various
factors. Therefore, without disturbing the
broad findings of fact given by learned court
below, the amount of maintenance awarded to
the applicant is being modified as below. (Para
16)

Considering the rival submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties, totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that
due to non-compliance of mandatory directions
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha &
anr.(supra)
before
the
court
below,
the
impugned judgment and gets vitiated under law.
This court in revisional stage has assured
compliance of mandatory directions of Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Rajnesh
Vs
Neha
&
anr.(supra) to avoid any further delay in final
disposal of the matter. The purpose of filing
affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities is
to clarify the stand of the parties in maintenance
case, their assets, liabilities and economic
condition show that the court may be in a
position to out the truth and come to just
decision in the case. (Para 17)

Revision application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr.2021 (1) JIC 1(SC)

2. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey
Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR (2017) SC 2383

3. Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Raj Kumari &
anr.(1970) 3 SCC 129

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Instant Criminal Revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order
dated
09.05.2023
passed
by
learned
Additional Principal Judge Family Court,
Amroha in Maintenance Case No.326 of
2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S.
Rajatpur,
District
Amroha.
By
the
impugned order learned court below has
awarded maintenance to the applicant Smt.
Shalini from the date of filing of
application dated 15.04.2021 to the date of
judgment at the rate of Rs.8,000/- , and
thereafter at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per
month. It is also directed in the impugned
order that maintenance will be payable on
10th of each calendar month. Original
applicant is directed to furnish her bank
account so that the respondents may
deposit the amount of maintenance in the
bank account directed. It is also clarified in
the impugned Judgment that any amount
obtained by the applicant as maintenance
from any court shall be liable to be adjusted
towards maintenance in the judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist,
leaned
counsel
for
the
respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent and perused the material
on record.
From perusal of record it appears that
during the pendency of present revision this
Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 directed
the revisionist and respondent No.2 to file
their
respective
affidavits
regarding
disclosure of the assets and liabilities in the
proforma prescribed in the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs.
Neha and another 2021 (1) JIC 1(SC)

3. The revisionist has filed an affidavit
of disclosure of assets and liabilities
through the supplementary affidavit dated
24.04.2024. The respondent No.2 has also
filed her affidavit of disclosure of assets
and liabilities on 05.11.2023. This Court on
09.07.2024 passed an order, which is
reproduced as under:-

"Learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 has stated that the maintenance
awarded in favour of the wife has not been
paid by the husband, who is in arrears of
approximately Rs.4,50,000/-.

Let the arrears of maintenance be
cleared positively before the next of haring.

Further, the revisionist husband
is directed to file his salary slip.

Put up this case on 7th August,
2024, as fresh."

4. Revisionist has assailed this order
before Hon'ble Supreme Court, by way of
SLP (Special Leave Petition) which was
registered as Diary No. S 34992/2024.
Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of said
SLP vide order dated 08.11.2024 with
following observations:-

"We dispose of this Special Leave
Petition by giving liberty to the petitioner
herein either in seeking modification of the
impugned order or for seeking early
disposal of the revision petition.

It is needless to observe that if
such a request is made by the petitioner
herein, the same shall be considered
expeditiousness and in accordance with
law.
2 All. Nagendra Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
417

Pending applications, if any,
shall stands disposed of."

5. Now at this stage parties are agreed
with the revision may be disposed of on
merits after hearing the submissions of
respective parties.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that this is admitted fact that
learned
court
below
decided
the
maintenance
application
filed
by
respondent No.2 without complying the
directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra)
wherein it is directed that the party
claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or
as a partner in a civil union, live-in
relationship, common law marriage, should
be required to file a concise application for
interim
maintenance
with
limited
pleadings, along with an Affidavit of
Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before
the concerned court, as a mandatory
requirement.

7. 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.

(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;

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

(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.

8. Learned counsels for the revisionist
submitted
that
Hon'ble
Court
also
addressed issue of overlapping jurisdiction
held that to overcome the issue of
overlapping
jurisdiction,
and
avoid
conflicting orders being passed in different
proceedings, it has become necessary to
issue directions in this regard, so that there
is uniformity in the practice followed by
the
Family
Courts/District
Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the
country. We direct that where successive
claims for maintenance are made by a party
under different statutes, the Court would
consider an adjustment or set-off, of the
amount
awarded
in
the
previous
proceeding/s, while determining whether
any further amount is to be awarded in the
subsequent
proceeding;
it
is
made
mandatory for the applicant to disclose the
previous proceeding and the orders passed
therein, in the subsequent proceeding.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submitted that in the present case
also the original applicant/revisionist has
filed
complaint
under
provisions
of
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, wherein, inter-alia,
maintenance has also been claimed from
opposite party, the husband. He further
submitted that although it is admitted case
that none of the parties had filed an
affidavit of disclosure of assets and
liabilities before the court below, yet it was
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incumbent on the part of the court below to
direct the parties to file their affidavit of
disclosure of assets and liabilities as per
guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra).

10. He next submitted that respondent
No.2 is a qualified lady, she did M.Com.,
B.Ed. and passed TET examination for
appointment in Government schools as per
information of the revisionist, she gives
home tuition and teaches in coaching
institutes and whereby she earns Rs.1 lakh
per month. He next submitted that
revisionist has concealed nothing in his
affidavit of disclosure of assets and
liabilities filed before this Court and has
stated that he is B.Tech in Electronic and
Communication his monthly emoluments
are Rs.78,400/-, he has also attached his
salary slip in the affidavit before this Court.

11. He also submitted that revisionist was
not given proper opportunity of hearing before
the court below, but he could not appear for
cross examination on some dates for inevitable
reasons and the learned court below closed his
cross-examination and when the revisionist
had filed an application after opening of his
cross-examination before the court, the same
was dismissed.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submitted that revisionist has filed
present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and
has also initiated other criminal proceedings
against the revisionist at Amroha, wherein
shes resides in Ghaziabad, just to harass the
revisionist. In fact the revisionist as well as
respondent No.2 both are residing in
Ghaziabad and it would be convenient for the
revisionist to pursue the legal proceedings
initiated by the respondent No.2 against him in
Ghaziabad. He also submitted that it is wrong
to say that revisionist has neglected to
maintain the revisionist, the marriage of the
parties was solemnized on 04.08.2014 in
District Pune, Maharashtra as Marriage
Certificate was issued by Special Marriage
Officer a copy of Marriage Certificate has
been filed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit.
The marriage was dowryless, just after the
marriage respondent No.2 started pressurizing
the revisionist to fulfill her expensive
expensive monetary demand . The respondent
No.2 became pregnant after marriage, but due
to her carelessness and inappropriate life style
complications
occurred,
it
resulted
in
miscarriage. The respondent No.2 used to
demand money from revisionist, who offered
the same to her parents and when the
revisionist refused to oblige her she became
aggressive and started misbehaving him and
matrimonial discord took place between the
parties in course of time, due to objectionable
conduct of the respondent No.2.

13. The revisionist had never ill treated
his wife nor any demand of dowry was made.
It is wrong to say that she was subjected to
matrimonial cruelty. The amount awarded by
the court below is exorbitant and unreasonable
as no basis has been given for the same. The
revisionist is consciously willing and is ready
to settle the matrimonial dispute, but
respondent No.2 is not forthcoming to
cooperate him when he pursued to settle the
matrimonial issue between the parties.

14.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent
No.2
submitted that this is admitted fact that
monthly emoluments of the revisionist are
more than Rs.78,000/-, as amount awarded
in the judgment and order is less than 25%
of the monthly income of the revisionist.
Therefore, in no manner the amount
awarded as maintenance in the impugned
judgment and order can be said to be
exorbitant, unreasonable or unjust.
2 All. Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
419

15. Learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 further submitted that respondent No.2
was compelled to take shelter at her parental
place due to maltreatment, harassment and
torture given to her by the revisionist. She is a
qualified lady, but she is not working women,
she is not having any independent source of
income and she had dependent on her parents
for her necessary expenses. The revisionist
being husband of the respondent No.2 is under
obligation to maintain her, but he has neglected
to pay maintenance to her, which resulted in
filing of present petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C. before the Hon'ble Court.

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey
Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee
Nandy AIR (2017) SC 2383 placing reliance on
a earlier judgment in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar
vs. Raj Kumari and Anr. (1970) 3 SCC 129, in
this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net
salary would be just and proper to be awarded as
maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount
of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must
be befitting the status of the parties and the
capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance.
Maintenance is always dependent on the factual
situation of the case and the court would be
justified in moulding the claim for maintenance
passed on various factors. Therefore, without
disturbing the broad findings of fact given by
learned court below, the amount of maintenance
awarded to the applicant is being modified as
below.

17. Considering the rival submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be
held that due to non-compliance of mandatory
directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra)
before the court below, the impugned judgment
and gets vitiated under law. This court in
revisional stage has assured compliance of
mandatory directions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another
(supra) to avoid any further delay in final
disposal of the matter. The purpose of filing
affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities is
to clarify the stand of the parties in maintenance
case, their assets, liabilities and economic
condition show that the court may be in a
position to out the truth and come to just
decision in the case.

18. After giving a thoughtful consideration
on submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and on meticulous examination material
available on record, I find no illegality,
irregularity or perversity in the impugned
judgment and order passed by learned court
below, the revision is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed.

19. However, revisionist is given a leverage
to pay the arrear of maintenance in installments,
it is directed that the arrear of maintenance from
date of filing of application to date of impugned
judgment will be paid in three monthly
installments, and first installment will be payable
on 27.02.2025 and other two installments will be
payable in subsequent months.

20. The revisionist will pay and continue
to pay the post judgment maintenance at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- per month as directed in the
impugned order on regular basis.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 419
ORIGINALJURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 672 of 2024

Smt. Kavita Chaudhary ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties