# Nirmal Kumar Fukan Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1947
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4171 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nirmal-kumar-fukan-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53386
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
125 - Maintenance to wife - Compliance
of Supreme Court directions - Filing of
affidavit
of
assets
and
liabilities
-
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 - Aditi
@ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, Criminal Appeal
No. 3446 of 2023 - Smt. Parul Tyagi v.
Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 -
Persistent
non-compliance
by
Family
Courts - Repeated circulars and judicial
training ignored - Chronic delay in
deciding interim maintenance - Systemic
judicial inertia - Directions issued for
statewide compliance and accountability
- Registrar General to place order before
Hon'ble Chief Justice. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 11,
13, 16, 22-24, 27-34)

HELD:
Parting with the facts of the instance case, this
is not the first case in which this Court has
noticed non-compliance with the above referred
judgments. This Court has observed that
circulations of judgments on the direction of
Hon'ble Supreme Court by this Court have a
little effect on the working of the trial Courts,
1948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
despite
regular
training
and
sensitization
programmes by the Judicial Training and
Research Institute, Lucknow, it is out of the
understanding of this Court why the Judicial
Officers
are
failed
to
understand
the
consequences of non-compliance of the orders,
passed by the Constitutional Courts even
though, it is premature to come to any
conclusion as of now. Therefore, this Court
directed all the learned Principal Judges, Family
Courts
established
under
the
territorial
jurisdiction of this Court, to file a compliance
report in view of the Rajnesh v. Neha case
(supra) and Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi
case (supra) in a sealed cover of their own
Court, along with all the Family Courts working
under their supervision and control. (Para 10)

This Court feels compelled to express its
concern about summoning such a report on the
judicial side. This Court is aware that this action
may negatively impact the morale of Judicial
Officers.
However,
for
the
effective
and
consistent implementation of the Supreme
Court's directives, this Court has no option but
to monitor the Family Courts so far as the
implementation of the judgments is concerned.
Despite issuing numerous orders to the learned
Principal Judge of Family Courts individually,
widely circulating the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court,
and
conducting
training
programs by JTRI in Lucknow, as well as
seminars on Family Court Sensitisation by the
Sensitisation of Family Courts Committee, this
Court have observed minimal impact in practice
(Para 11)

Despite the law's clear mandate for speedy
relief, interim maintenance is subjected to
endless delays- often involving 70 to 90
adjournments over nearly a decade. Such
routine adjournments exemplify the plight of
thousands of women who are re-victimized
by a sluggish and indifferent judicial system.
Maintenance laws are intended as social
welfare legislati

## Text

_Characters 0–39,969 of 65,602. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39969 for what follows._

5 All. Nirmal Kumar Fukan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1947
constitutes sufficient grounds to
quash the charge-sheet as it reflects a flaw
in the investigation.

61. Given the totality of the facts
and circumstances, the judgements as relied
upon, arguments of learned counsel for the
parties including their written submissions
and the settled position of law in
matrimonial cases, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations as
made against the family members of the
husband, who are the applicants herein, are
insufficient and, prima facie, do not make
out a case against the applicants. Further,
they are so farfetched and improbable that
no prudent person can conclude that there
are sufficient grounds to proceed against
them. In effect, the case in hand falls
squarely under the Categories (1), (5) and
(7) set out in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal68, thus, it is a fit case to exercise
inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS
(482
Cr.P.C.). Accordingly,
the
order
impugned dated 29.10.2024, up to the extent
of summoning the applicant no.1 under
Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4
D.P. Act, and applicant nos. 2 and 3 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 307 I.P.C. and Section
3/4 D.P. Act, charge sheet dated 19.08.2024
and proceeding of Case No.14793 of 202469,
arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 2024,
Police Station- Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur,
against the applicants, pending in the court of
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Hapur,
are
quashed.

62. Needless to say that this Court
has not commented upon the husband, who
is a Canadian Citizen and it is open for the
O.P. No. 2 to proceed against him, if she
thinks fit.

63. The present application stands
allowed accordingly.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1947
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4171 of 2024

Nirmal Kumar Fukan ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Sri Beerendra
Singh Pal, Sri Giri Ram Rawat, Sri Rajesh
Kumar, Sri Sunil Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Sudhir
Mehrotra

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
125 - Maintenance to wife - Compliance
of Supreme Court directions - Filing of
affidavit
of
assets
and
liabilities
-
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 - Aditi
@ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, Criminal Appeal
No. 3446 of 2023 - Smt. Parul Tyagi v.
Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 -
Persistent
non-compliance
by
Family
Courts - Repeated circulars and judicial
training ignored - Chronic delay in
deciding interim maintenance - Systemic
judicial inertia - Directions issued for
statewide compliance and accountability
- Registrar General to place order before
Hon'ble Chief Justice. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 11,
13, 16, 22-24, 27-34)

HELD:
Parting with the facts of the instance case, this
is not the first case in which this Court has
noticed non-compliance with the above referred
judgments. This Court has observed that
circulations of judgments on the direction of
Hon'ble Supreme Court by this Court have a
little effect on the working of the trial Courts,
1948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
despite
regular
training
and
sensitization
programmes by the Judicial Training and
Research Institute, Lucknow, it is out of the
understanding of this Court why the Judicial
Officers
are
failed
to
understand
the
consequences of non-compliance of the orders,
passed by the Constitutional Courts even
though, it is premature to come to any
conclusion as of now. Therefore, this Court
directed all the learned Principal Judges, Family
Courts
established
under
the
territorial
jurisdiction of this Court, to file a compliance
report in view of the Rajnesh v. Neha case
(supra) and Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi
case (supra) in a sealed cover of their own
Court, along with all the Family Courts working
under their supervision and control. (Para 10)

This Court feels compelled to express its
concern about summoning such a report on the
judicial side. This Court is aware that this action
may negatively impact the morale of Judicial
Officers.
However,
for
the
effective
and
consistent implementation of the Supreme
Court's directives, this Court has no option but
to monitor the Family Courts so far as the
implementation of the judgments is concerned.
Despite issuing numerous orders to the learned
Principal Judge of Family Courts individually,
widely circulating the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court,
and
conducting
training
programs by JTRI in Lucknow, as well as
seminars on Family Court Sensitisation by the
Sensitisation of Family Courts Committee, this
Court have observed minimal impact in practice
(Para 11)

Despite the law's clear mandate for speedy
relief, interim maintenance is subjected to
endless delays- often involving 70 to 90
adjournments over nearly a decade. Such
routine adjournments exemplify the plight of
thousands of women who are re-victimized
by a sluggish and indifferent judicial system.
Maintenance laws are intended as social
welfare legislation, designed to prevent
destitution. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh
v.
Neha
(supra),
has
prescribed
clear
timelines for the disposal of maintenance
applications, underscoring the necessity of
affidavits of assets and liabilities and timebound decisions. Yet, a woman's plea for
basic
subsistence
is
frequently
buried
beneath the weight of adjournments, judicial
absenteeism, and procedural delays. (Para
27)

The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to
establish
specialized
courts
for
the
expeditious resolution of matrimonial and
family
disputes-particularly
matters
of
maintenance,
custody,
and
domestic
violence, which require urgent adjudication.
However, the very purpose of creating
separate Family
Courts
appears
to
be
defeated due to poor infrastructure, an
overwhelming backlog of cases, frequent
adjournments,
non-functional courtrooms,
and undue delays-such as waiting over a
decade and enduring 70 to 90 adjournments
even for interim maintenance. (Para 29)

Despite the clear and specific directions laid
down in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and
subsequent authoritative pronouncements, a
disturbing trend has emerged wherein the
learned Family Court Judges routinely fail to
implement these mandates. Judges often
neglect to require the mandatory filing of
"Assets and Liabilities Affidavits" from both
parties-affidavits
intended
to
prevent
concealment, promote transparency, and
facilitate fair maintenance orders. No fixed
timelines are enforced by the Courts, and
routine adjournments are granted without
sufficient
justification.
Noncooperative
parties
are are
not penalized
by the
imposition of reasonable costs for evading
proceedings.
Consequently,
interim
maintenance applications remain undecided
for years, despite being summary proceeding
in nature, and there are no effective or
practical consequences for non-compliance
with the High Court's orders. (Para 31)

Reverting to the facts of this case, neither party
has chosen to file the affidavit of assets and
liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
(supra), disclosing all sources of income, in
compliance with the order dated 23.5.2024. The
office report dated 11.12.2024 reflects that
notice was duly received by the respondentwife, and a Vakalatnama has been filed on her
behalf. Upon perusal, the impugned order does
not warrant interference by this Court, as the
record indicates that the revisionist-husband
5 All. Nirmal Kumar Fukan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1949
holds a senior position in Gail India Limited. It is
made clear that, in the event the revisionist
husband fails to pay the maintenance, recovery
shall be affected in accordance with the
directions laid down in Rajesh Babu Saxena v.
State of U.P. and Others [Criminal Revision
Defective No. 1789 of 2023]. (Para 35)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Rajnesh Vs Neha case (supra) & Smt. Parul
Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi, (2023) SCC OnLine All
2684

3. In Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023, arising
out of SLP Crl No.11954, titled as Aditi @ Mithi
Vs Jitesh Sharma

4. Rajesh Babu Saxena Vs St. of U.P. and ors.
[Criminal Revision Defective No. 1789 of 2023]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist-husband, Shri Sudhir Mehrotra,
learned Amicus-Curiae, learned A.G.A. for
the State-respondent, and perused the
record.

2. The revisionist husband has
preferred the instant revision, assailing the
legality and validity of the impugned order
dated 19.01.2024, passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya in
Case No. 172 of 2023, under section 125
Cr. P.C.

3. Both, revisionist-husband and
respondent-wife, were directed to file an
affidavit of Assets and Liabilities as
mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr,
disclosing all sources of income.

4. At the outset, among other
arguments, the learned counsel for the
revisionist
contended
that
the
entire
proceedings initiated by the respondentwife and the procedure adopted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Auraiya, contravene the judgments in
Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra) and Smt.
Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi . The learned
counsel further asserted that the learned
Principal Judge of the Family Court failed
to adhere to the mandated procedures
outlined in these judgments, thereby
rendering
the
entire
proceedings
procedurally
flawed
and
legally
unsustainable.

5. The learned A.G.A. submits that
the learned Principal Judge of the Family
Court has not only committed contempt of
its own Court by wilfully disregarding the
Supreme Court's mandate in Rajnesh v.
Neha case (supra), and this Court in Smt.
Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi case (supra),
has also undermined judicial propriety.
This is against the rule of law. Learned
A.G.A. further stated that both judgments
were widely circulated to all Family Courts
within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttar
Pradesh
to
ensure
compliance
and
awareness, still the same have not been
followed.

6. This Court, in receipt of a letter
dated 10.11.2023 from the SecretaryGeneral, Supreme Court of India, in
compliance
with
the
direction
dated
06.11.2023, passed by the Supreme Court
3, recirculated the Rajnesh v. Neha case
(supra). It shall also be displayed on the
websites of all the District Courts/Family
Courts/Courts of Judicial Magistrate for
awareness and implementation.
1950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Accordingly, as per provision of
Rule 4 (C) (10) of Chapter III of the Rules
of the Court, 1952, the Administrative
Committee of this Court issued a circular
and a copy of Rajnesh v. Neha case
(supra) and Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh
Sharma case (supra) was sent to all the
District Judges, Principal Judges of the
Family Courts, Presiding Officers of
MACTs, LARRAs, and the Commercial
Courts for onward circulation amongst all
the Judicial Officers working under their
kind control for information and necessary
compliance.

8. In the light of the foregoing
discussions,
learned
Principal
Judge,
Family Court, Auraiya was called upon to
submit a report about the compliance of
above-referred judgments, passed by the
Supreme Court and this Court; learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya was
also directed to explain as to why the
mandate of Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra)
and Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi case
(supra) was not followed while deciding
Case No. 172 of 2023, under Section 125
Cr.P.C; and was further directed to file a copy
of the last 25 judgments/orders, passed in the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C,
needless to say, the orders shall be either
deciding interim maintenance or final award
of maintenance through Registrar General of
this Court in a sealed cover.

9. In view of this Court's order, the
learned judge submitted copies of 25
judgments. Upon perusal, the judgments
were found to be satisfactory. It appears
that, following this Court's order, a sense
of propriety may have prevailed upon the
learned judge.

10. Parting with the facts of the
instance case, this is not the first case in
which this Court has noticed noncompliance with the above-referred
judgments. This Court has observed that
circulations
of
judgments
on
the
direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court by
this Court have a little effect on the
working of the trial Courts, despite
regular
training
and
sensitization
programmes by the Judicial Training
and Research Institute, Lucknow, it is
out of the understanding of this Court
why the Judicial Officers are failed to
understand the consequences of noncompliance of the orders, passed by the
Constitutional Courts even though, it is
premature to come to any conclusion as
of now. Therefore, this Court directed
all the learned Principal Judges, Family
Courts established under the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court, to file a
compliance report in view of the
Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra) and Smt.
Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi case
(supra) in a sealed cover of their own
Court, along with all the Family Courts
working under their supervision and
control.

11. This Court feels compelled to
express its concern about summoning such
a report on the judicial side. This Court is
aware that this action may negatively
impact the morale of Judicial Officers.
However, for the effective and consistent
implementation of the Supreme Court's
directives, this Court has no option but to
monitor the Family Courts so far as the
implementation
of
the
judgments
is
concerned.
Despite
issuing
numerous
orders to the learned Principal Judge of
Family
Courts
individually,
widely
circulating the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, and conducting training
programs by JTRI in Lucknow, as well as
seminars on Family Court Sensitisation by
5 All. Nirmal Kumar Fukan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1951
the
Sensitisation
of
Family
Courts
Committee, this Court have observed
minimal impact in practice.

12. The Registrar (Compliance) was
directed to transmit a copy of the order to
all the Principal Judges, Family Court of
Uttar Pradesh, for effective and speedy
compliance. The report shall be submitted
in a sealed cover to this Court through the
learned Registrar General.

13. In compliance with the order
dated 23.05.2024, Compliance Reports
from the office of 48 learned Principal
Family Court Judges out of 74 Family
Courts have been received. The essence of
all the reports is, more or less, same that the
learned Family Courts are making efforts to
ensure the compliance of Rajnesh v. Neha
& Anr (supra), Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh
Sharma (supra) and Smt. Parul Tyagi v.
Gaurav Tyagi (supra). The Compliance
Reports have not been found in conformity
with
the
judgements
referred
to
hereinabove.

14. The Registrar General of this
Court again directed that the compliance
report shall ensure compliance with the
terms
of
the
judgments
referred
to
hereinabove, both in letter and spirit,
particularly paragraphs 87 to 90 of Smt.
Parul Tyagi case (supra). It shall also
include the details of each case pending
disposal under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before
the Family Courts in tabular form from all
the learned Family Courts situated within
the territorial jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh
in the following format.

S
r.
N
o.
Date of
filing
of
applic
ation
Num
ber
of
times
case
Date of
interim
mainten
ance
order, if
Date of
final
mainten
ance
order, if
Pres
ent
stat
us of
the
under
section
125
Cr.P.C
.
is
listed
befor
e the
Fami
ly
Cour
t
any
any
case
--
--
-------
------
---
--------
---------
-----

15. On the earlier occasions as well,
this Court had directed all the learned
Principal
Judges,
Family
Courts
discharging judicial function under the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, to file a
compliance report in view of the Rajnesh
v. Neha & Anr's case (supra) and Smt.
Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi's case
(supra).

16. Dissatisfied with the compliance of the
order dated 23.05.2024, this Court issued a
fresh order on 10.06.2024 and directed the
Registrar General of this Court to ensure
the compliance with the terms of judgments
referred to herein above, both in letter and
spirit, particularly para 87 to 90 of Smt.
Parul Taygi's case (supra) in a tabular
form as detailed in the judgment dated
10.06.2024.

17. From a perusal of the office report
dated 06.07.2024, it revealed that 47 out of
74 learned Principal Judges, Family Courts
sent the records in compliance with the
order dated 10.06.2024, the rest of the
learned Judges, except two, who sought
time to comply the terms of order dated
10.06.2024, did not even bother to request
for a time to comply with the order passed
by the Constitutional Court. It was
expected that all the learned Principal
Judges of Family Courts to send a report in
a seriatim of each court separately, but the
same approach has not been adopted, for
the reasons best known to them. It is
1952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
premature to comment on their functioning,
sensitivity towards the cause and regard for
the rule of law.

18. In this background, this Court
again directed all Principal Judges of
Family Courts of Uttar Pradesh to comply
with the terms of the order dated 10.6.2024,
both in letter and spirit. It was further
directed that the learned Principal Judges of
family Courts shall ensure that the details
are sent court-wise separately in a seriatim
[oldest case to the latest case].

19. Shri Mehrotra, learned Amicus
Curiae for the Court, suggested that an
explanation be called from the respective
principal judges, Family Courts, who still
need to comply with the terms of the order
dated 10.06.2024, despite having sufficient
time. This Court thought that seeking an
explanation at first instance would not
serve the purpose of calling for the records.
Therefore, one more opportunity was
granted to all the learned Principal Judges,
Family Courts, to think and introspect
about their duty, role, and assigned
responsibility towards the chair they are
holding for fulfilling the Constitutional
mandate, and to comply with the terms of
the order dated 10.06.2024.

20. In brief, the empirical data
furnished by learned Family Court Judges
could be summarized as follows: [Since
oldest to August 2024]

(1) A brief of compliance report
from District Agra

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge of the family Court
indicates that 1433 cases are currently
pending. Of these, interim maintenance has
been granted in 84 cases, and 1 case has
been finally decided. The oldest pending
case dates back to 2013.

(2) A brief of compliance report
from District Aligarh

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1019 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 93 cases,
and 110 cases have been finally decided.
Notably, one case each from the years
2014, 2015, and 2016 remains pending. On
average, a case filed in the year 2017 has
been
listed
approximately
70
times.
Similarly, a case filed in the year 2022 has
been listed around 20 times. The oldest
pending case dates back to the year 2015.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No.01, indicates that a total of 460
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 14
cases, and 28 cases have been finally
decided. On average, a case filed in the
year 2017 has been listed approximately 80
times. Similarly, a case filed in the year
2022 has been listed around 20 times. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2017.

(3) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No.02, indicates that a total of 495
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 63
cases, and 46 cases have been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2017.

(4) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No.03, indicates that a total of 580
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 51
cases, and 81 cases have been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2017.
5 All. Nirmal Kumar Fukan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1953

(5) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No.04, indicates that a total of 387
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 59
cases, and 50 cases have been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2017.

(3) A brief of compliance report
from District Ambedkar Nagar

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge of the family Court
indicates that 1273 cases are currently
pending. Of these, 14 have been granted
interim maintenance, and 263 have been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to 2018.

(4) A brief of compliance report
from District Amroha

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge of the Family Court
indicates that 937 cases are currently
pending.
Of
these,
neither
interim
maintenance has been granted nor has any
case been finally decided. The oldest
pending case dates back to 2018.

(5) A brief of compliance report
from District Azamgarh

(1) The report submitted by the
learned In- charge Principal Judge, Family
Court, indicates that a total of 998 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 104 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2015.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No.01, indicates that a total of 770
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in
104 cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2014.

(3) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No.02, indicates that a total of 813
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in
126 cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2015.

(4) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No.03, indicates that a total of 633
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 42
cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2017.

(6) A brief of compliance report
from District Baghpat

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 901 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 134 cases,
and 38 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2013.

(7) A brief of compliance report
from District Bahraich

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1071 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 110 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2012.

(8) A brief of compliance report
from District Balrampur

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 851 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 109 cases,
and 18 cases have been finally decided.
1954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2010.

(9) A brief of compliance report
from District Banda

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1202 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 28 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2009.

(10) A brief of compliance
report from District Barabanki

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 441 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 46 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2018.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No. 1, indicates that a total of 544
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 44
cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2018.

(3) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No. 2, indicates that a total of 773
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 49
cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2014.

(11) A brief of compliance
report from District Bareilly

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 500 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 90 cases,
and 1 case has been finally decided. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2018.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No. 1, indicates that a total of 649
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in
233 cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2015.

(3) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No. 2, indicates that a total of 836
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in
127 cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2011.

(4) The report submitted by
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No. 3, indicates that a total of 549
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 69
cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2017.

(12) A brief of compliance
report from District Basti

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 649 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 9 cases,
and 1 case has been finally decided. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2016.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, indicates that a total of 735 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 53 cases,
and 1 case has been finally decided. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2015.
5 All. Nirmal Kumar Fukan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1955

(13) A brief of compliance
report from District Bijnor

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 731 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 16 cases,
and 4 cases have been finally decided. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2016.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, indicates that a total of 606 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 17 cases,
and 16 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2017.

(14) A brief of compliance
report from District Budaun

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 763 cases are
currently pending. Out of these cases,
neither has interim maintenance been
granted nor has any case been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2015.

(2) The report submitted by
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, indicates that a total of 823 cases are
currently pending. Out of the these cases,
neither has interim maintenance been
granted nor has any case been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2018.

(15) A brief of compliance
report from District Chandauli

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1048 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 162 cases,
and none of the cases have been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2017.

(16) A brief of compliance
report from District Chitrakoot

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 396 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 81 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2019.

(17) A brief of compliance
report from District Deoria

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 774 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 34 cases,
and 2 cases have been finally decided. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2022.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No. 2, indicates that a total of 100
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 15
cases, and none of the cases has been
finally decided. The oldest pending case
dates back to the year 2005.

(18) A brief of compliance
report from District Etah

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1162 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 4 cases,
and 133 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2013.

(19) A brief of compliance
report from District Ayodhya

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 914 cases are
1956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 81 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2012.

(20) A brief of compliance
report from District Farrukhabad

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 670 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 14 cases,
and 38 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2018.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No. 1, indicates that a total of 536
cases are currently pending. Out of these,
interim maintenance has been granted in 15
cases, and 51 cases have been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2012.

(21) A brief of compliance
report from District Fatehpur

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1207 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 9 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2017.

(22)A
brief
of
compliance
report from District Firozabad

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 553 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 21 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2015.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, indicates that a total of 648 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 73 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2014.

(3) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-2, indicates that a total of 919 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 45 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2017.

(23) A brief of compliance
report from District Hardoi

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 731 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 14 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2014.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-1, indicates that a total of 457 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 6 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2014.

(3) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-2, indicates that a total of 526 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 21 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2007.

(24) A brief of compliance
report from District Hathras

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1077 cases are
5 All. Nirmal Kumar Fukan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1957
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 87 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2019.

(25) A brief of compliance
report from District Jaunpur

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-1, indicates that a total of 603 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 7 cases,
and 3 cases have been finally decided. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2013.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-3, indicates that a total of 635 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 13 cases,
and 47 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2019.

(26) A brief of compliance
report from District Jhansi

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 43 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 21 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2023.

(27) A brief of compliance
report from District Kannauj

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1884 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 135 cases,
and 484 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2014.

(28) A brief of compliance
report from District Kanpur Nagar

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 3044 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 325 cases,
and 40 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2000.

(29) A brief of compliance
report from District Kasganj

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 760 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 22 cases,
and 43 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2018.

(30) A brief of compliance
report from District Kaushambi

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 1232 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 45 cases,
and 72 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2014.

(31) A brief of compliance
report from District Lalitpur

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 880 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 321 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2019.

(32) A brief of compliance
report from District Lucknow

(1) The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 650 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 145 cases,
1958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and 12 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2017.

(2) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-1, indicates that a total of 515 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 375 cases,
and 23 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2009.

(3) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-2, indicates that a total of 508 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 220 cases,
and 18 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2012.

(4) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-3, indicates that a total of 479 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 149 cases,
and 3 cases have been finally decided. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2012.

(5) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-4, indicates that a total of 499 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 318 cases,
and all 499 cases have been finally decided.

(6) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-5, indicates that a total of 546 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 200 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2013.

(7) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-6, indicates that a total of 500 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 227 cases,
and 17 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2013.

(8) The report submitted by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-7, indicates that a total of 700 cases
are currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 232 cases,
and 14 cases have been finally decided.
The oldest pending case dates back to the
year 2013.

(33) A brief of compliance
report from District Maharajganj

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 2416 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 22 cases,
and none of the cases has been finally
decided. The oldest pending case dates
back to the year 2014.

(34) A brief of compliance
report from District Mahoba

The report submitted by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
indicates that a total of 583 cases are
currently pending. Out of these, interim
maintenance has been granted in 178 cases,
and 9 cases has been finally decided. The
oldest pending case dates back to the year
2019.

(35) A brief of compliance
report from District Mainpuri