# Pallavi Srivastava Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1167
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6391 of 2025
- **Bench:** Madan Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pallavi-srivastava-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54112
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

2 All. Pallavi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1167
(2026) 2 ILRA 1167
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6391 of 2025

Pallavi Srivastava ....Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife at Gorakhpur was maintainable in view
of Section 126(1) Cr.P.C.;
(ii) Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for maintenance on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Criminal Procedure - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Maintenance - Territorial jurisdiction - Section
126(1) Cr.P.C.:
Held: Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be instituted at a place where the wife resides. The
expression "resides" includes even a temporary residence, provided it is not casual. Permanent residence is
not a pre-condition for conferring jurisdiction. [Paras 16-18]

Criminal Procedure - Maintenance - Residence of wife - Determination:
Held: Where the wife, after leaving her matrimonial home, resides at her parental house for a considerable
period and not casually, such place constitutes her residence for the purpose of Section 126(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The
wife cannot be denied remedy merely because her parents have another place of residence. [Paras 15, 20]

Criminal Procedure - Maintenance - Jurisdiction - Application of law to facts:
Held: Where the revisionist-wife, after being left by her husband, started residing at her parental house at
Gorakhpur and also initiated criminal proceedings from there, the said place constituted her residence.
Accordingly, the Family Court at Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. [Paras 15, 20]

Criminal Procedure - Maintenance - Rejection on technical ground - Validity:
Held: Rejection of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction without proper
appreciation of evidence regarding residence of the wife is unsustainable. The trial court failed to consider
relevant documentary and factual material. [Paras 8-9, 21]

Criminal Procedure - Revision - Interference - Scope:
Held: Where the findings of the trial court are contrary to statutory provisions and settled legal principles,
interference in revisional jurisdiction is warranted. The impugned order rejecting the application was liable to
be set aside. [Paras 21-22]

Criminal Procedure - Maintenance proceedings - Direction for expeditious disposal:
Held: The trial court was directed to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on merits, without
raising objection as to jurisdiction, by a reasoned order within stipulated time. [Para 23]
1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Smt. Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, (1981) 4 SCC 517 - relied on; Darshan Kumari
v. Surinder Kumar, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 137 - relied on; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012)
9 SCC 460 - distinguished.

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

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Territorial jurisdiction; Residence; Temporary residence; Parental home; Wife's residence; Family
Court; Revisional jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 16.09.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Gorakhpur in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 1165 of 2023 (Pallavi Srivastava vs. Tarun Prakash Srivastava), rejecting application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of jurisdiction

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondents: Sri Tausif Ahmad, Sri Vijai Kumar Rai, Learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the revisionist and the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of opposite party no.2 in the Court today are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the
learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the
revisionist with a prayer to quash/set aside the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2025
passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Gorakhpur in Case No. Criminal Misc.
Case No. 1165 of 2023 (Pallavi Srivastava VS. Tarun Prakash Srivastava), under Section 125
Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125
Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance allowance from the opposite party no.2 on the ground of
jurisdiction.

4. It is the case of the revisionist that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with
opposite party no.2 on 9th December, 2020 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals in
which Rs. 10 lakhs cash and other ornaments were given to the family of the opposite party no.2 by
her father as dowry. Total approximately, Rs. 30 lakhs of father of the revisionist were spent. After
marriage the revisionist went to her in-laws place at Lucknow and lived there. On 24th December,
2020, revisionist's mother-in-law and sister-in-law took away all her jewellery in the name of
keeping it safe in a bank locker and when she went out with her husband, i.e., the opposite party
no.2, they accused her of losing the said jewellery. The brother-in-laws of the revisionist, namely,
Satish Srivastava and Prabhat Srivastava has bad intention against her. The family members of
2 All. Pallavi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1169
opposite party no.2 are habitual drinker and after drink they used to abuse the revisionist. Opposite
party no.2 is doing job in Merchant Navy and he always came with wines. One day, the opposite
party no.2 offered the revisionist to take drink but she refused, then he pushed her due to which she
sustained injuries. When opposite party no.2 went to his duty, his family members used to harass
her for loss of jewellery. The revisionist was suffering from abdomen illness and she has got
operated on 22nd December, 2022 and second operation was scheduled to held in the month of
February-March, 2023, the opposite party no.2 and his family members left her in the hospital and
thereafter her parents had taken her care of. After getting her second operation undertaken, she
discharged from hospital on 15th March, 2023, the parents of the revisionist called the elder brother
of opposite party no.2 to take back to the revisionist at her matrimonial home but he has not
responded, therefore, she has come at her parental house at Gorakhpur.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the father of the revisionist,
namely, Krishna Kumar Srivastava was earlier working in Railway Department and during service,
he lived at Lucknow and also purchased and constructed a house but after retirement he resides at
Gorakhpur at his native place being Amit Aditya Tent House, Bichhiya, Jungle Tulsiram, Shahpur,
Gorakhpur, U.P. In Gorakhpur, father of the revisionist has also ancestral property and he also use
to withdraw his pension from the treasury office at Gorakhpur. He further submits that on 15th
March, 2023, due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 has left the
revisionist at her parental house i.e. Gorakhpur, where she has lodged first information report
against her husband and her in-laws (total 7 in number) on 20th October, 2023 at Police StationMahila Thana, District-Gorakhpur which was registered as Case Crime No. 0057 of 2023 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, a copy of the said first
information report has been enclosed at page no.24 ownards of the supplementary affidavit. Since
15th March, 2023, when her husband left i.e. opposite party no.2 has left the revisionist at her
parental house at Gorakhpur, she had no other option but to reside there and since then she is living
there.

7. In support of his case, learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the
Court to Voter List-2022 of Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur which has been enclosed as Annexure No.
S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit wherein the names of father of the revisionist and his family
members have been mentioned. He has also referred to Kisan Bahi enclosed as Annexure No.S.A.-
2 to the supplementary affidavit, issued by the revenue authorities of the district administration of
Gorakhpur, wherein the name of father of the revisionist has been shown as permanent resident of
District Gorakhpur. Besides the above, learned counsel for the revisionist has also enclosed the
S.I.R. forms which have been filed by the father of the revisionist and his family members at
Gorakhpur as Annexure No.S.A.-3 to the supplementary affidavit. A copy of the order issued by
the Tehsildar Sadar, Gorakhpur dated 19th January, 1987 has also been brought on record as
Annexure No.4 to the supplementary affidavit, whereby the name of the father of the revisionist has
been mutated in the relevant revenue record after the death of his mother i.e. grand-mother of the
revisionist.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid documentary evidence, learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the trial court has not considered the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by
the revisionist during the course of trial with regard to her living place i.e. at her parental house i.e.
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gorakhpur. The trial court has also misinterpreted the provisions of Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. in the
case of the revisionist, while the said provision is fully applicable in her case. The trial court passed
by the judgment impugned rejecting the claim of the revisionist for grant of maintenance allowance
is without application of mind and incorrect in appreciation of evidence.

9. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that without examining
the aforesaid facts about the living place of the revisionist, the trial court has rejected the
application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of jurisdiction, which cannot
be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

10. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for
the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by
submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned
judgment and rejecting the claim of the revisionist, so as to warrant any interference by this Court
in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

11. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that after leaving her
matrimonial house i.e. house of the opposite party no.2, the revisionist stays with her parents at
Hydil Colony, Jairajpuri, Near Hanuman Mandir, Sarojani Nagar, Amausi, Lucknow as is evident
from her Adharcard, a copy of which has been brought on record at page no. 45 of the counter
affidavit. Apart from that, for showing the present address of the residence of the revisionist at
Lucknow learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also enclosed the copy of the marriage card of
the brother of the revisionist, namely, Amit Srivastava, registration paper of four wheeler of father
of revisionist, medical papers qua treatment of father of revisionist, marriage card of the revisionist
voter I.D. card of the family of the parents of the revisionist of the year 2022 and 2024, bank passbook and driving licence of the revisionist, SIR list and declaration of the revisionist and sale-deed
dated 21st January, 2024, which has been purchased by the father of the revisionist in the name of
her mother, have also been enclosed.

12. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
submits that since after leaving her matrimonial house, the revisionist is residing at her parental
house at Lucknow, therefore, the trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application
of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of jurisdiction. In support of his case,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460.

13. On the premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since there is no
illegality in the judgment impugned, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that it
is an admitted case that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2.

15. From the perusal of the documents as relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist
and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 qua the present living place of the revisionist, this
2 All. Pallavi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1171
Court finds that the father of the revisionist has two places of stay, one his native place i.e.
Gorakhpur and second his work place i.e. Lucknow from where he has retired from service,
meaning thereby that the father of the revisionist has his constructed house at Lucknow as well as
his native place i.e. Gorakhpur. As and when, as per his wishes and requirement, father of the
revisionist stays at his own house either at Lucknow or at Gorakhpur. It is also but natural that after
leaving her matrimonial house, she has no other option but to reside with her parents, wherever
they reside. It is cropped up from the first information report dated 20th October, 2023 lodged by
the revisionist against her husband and her in-laws (total 7 in number) at Police Station-Mahila
Thana, District-Gorakhpur which was registered as Case Crime No. 0057 of 2023 under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act and also from the perusal of the
impugned judgment, after discharge from hospital on 13th March, 2023, she went to her
matrimonial house and thereafter on 15th March, 2023, she went to her parental house i.e.
Bichhiya, Jungle Tulsiram, Aditya Tent House, Gorakhpur and since then she is living there.

16. In order to judge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment impugned in the present
criminal revision, it would be worth to notice sub-section (1) of Section 126 Cr.P.C., which
provides for venue of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. For ready reference, sub-section (1)
of Section 126 Cr.P.C. is being quoted herein-below:

"126. Procedure.-(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in
any district- (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife resides, or (c) where he last resided with
his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child."

17, A studied perusal of the above quoted provision would go to show that proceedings
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to be taken against a person in any district where the husband
resides or where he is, or his wife resides, or where husband last resided with his wife or as the
case may be, with the mother of illegitimate child.

18. In the matter of Smt. Jeewanti Pandey Vs. Kishan Chandra Pandey reported in (1981)
4 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has defined the word " ?Resides?, which is as
under:-

"12................The expression "resides" means to make an abode for a considerable time;
to dwell permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time. It is the place
where a person has a fixed home or abode. Where there is such fixed home or such abode at one
place the person cannot be said to reside at any other place where he had gone on a casual or
temporary visit, for example, for health or business or for a change. If a person lives with his wife
and children in an established home, his legal and actual place of residence is the same. If a
person has no established home and is compelled to live in hotels, boarding houses or houses of
others, his actual and physical habitation is the place where he actually or personally resides."

19. Similar principle of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
matter of Darshan Kumari (Smt) Vs. Surinder Kumar reported in 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 137,
wherein it has clearly been held that the temporary residence of wife if not casual is sufficient to
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
confer jurisdiction on the magistrate at that place or district concerned to try the maintenance
petition. The Relevant portion whereof is extracted here-under:

"3........we find that Section 126 of the Code requires that the proceedings under Section
125 may be taken against any person in any district where he or his wife resides. The section does
not require permanent residence at the said place. Even a temporary residence, so long as it is not
casual, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrate at that place or of the district
concerned. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the High Court's finding was
incorrect. The appellant was entitled to prosecute the application in the Court of the leaned
Magistrate at Nuh where as per her averment in the application, she was residing and still resides.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned decision of the High Court....................."

20. In view of the facts as born out from the records, it is clear that at the time of filing of
instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the revisionist resided at her parental house i.e.
Gorakhpur which is the native place of her father. Thus, applying the principles of law laid down in
the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the simple reading of Section 126
(1) (b) Cr.P.C. to the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that after leaving her
matrimonial house at Lucknow she is residing at her parental house at Gorakhpur, where she has
also lodged first information report against her husband and his family members. As such, Section
126 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. is fully applicable in the case of the revisionist. The revisionist has not stayed at
her parental house at Gorakhpur casually. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the
application made by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Gorakhpur is maintainable and the
trial court at Gorakhpur as per Section 126 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. has jurisdiction to hear and decide the
said application.

21. In view of the above deliberation and discussion, this Court finds that the trial court has
not considered such facts as observed above and has passed the impugned judgment while rejecting
the claim of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of jurisdiction. The findings
recorded by the trial court cannot be said to legal and correct in the eyes of law. The judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in the case of Amit Kapoor (Supra) is
not applicable in the facts of the present case.

22. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2025 passed by the
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Gorakhpur in Case No. Criminal Misc. Case No. 1165
of 2023 (Pallavi Srivastava VS. Tarun Prakash Srivastava), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is quashed.

23. In order to achieve the real intent of the legislation, the trial court is directed to consider
and decide the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which has been registered
as Criminal Misc. Case No. 1165 of 2023 (Pallavi Srivastava VS. Tarun Prakash Srivastava), under
Section 125, on merits, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order, without
raising any objection with regard to jurisdiction or maintainability of the instant application,
preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after
affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment
to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.
2 All. Smt. Zaibunisha Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
1173

24. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the directions/observations made
above.

25. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1173
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 29 of 2026

Smt. Zaibunisha ...Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is maintainable, and relief thereof
grantable, on the strength of an unregistered agreement to sell which does not confer any right, title, or
interest in immovable property, in light of the bar u/s 41(h) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the statutory
mandate regarding registration in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 96 - Registration Act, 1908 - s. 49 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 -
ss. 38, 41(h) - Permanent Injunction - Maintainability of - No enforceable right - Unregistered
Agreement to Sell - The plaintiff - appellant instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her alleged peaceful possession over
the disputed immovable property and from alienating the same, asserting rights on the basis of
an agreement to sell dated 16.01.2020, whereby the defendant had purportedly agreed to
transfer the property for a total consideration of Rs. 65,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,00,000/-
was paid as earnest money, with the stipulation that the sale deed would be executed by
15.09.2022 after obtaining requisite permission from the competent authority, the defendant
being a member of a Scheduled Caste, however, upon the defendant's failure to execute the sale
deed, the plaintiff, claiming readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract, sought to
protect her possession through the instant First Appeal, which came to be dismissed by the High
Court on the ground that the agreement to sell was unregistered and unstamped and, therefore,
inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring any enforceable right.

Held: The trial court has considered all the facts and has rightly concluded that the plaintiff/appellant cannot
be granted the relief of permanent injunction against the true owner on the basis of unregistered agreement
to sell, which does not confer any right title or interest in the plaintiff/appellant regarding the disputed
property - There is no perversity in the impugned judgment of trial court warranting interference by Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction - Accordingly, the instant appeal meritless and dismissed at the
admission stage. [Paras 15, 16] (E-13)

Case Law Cited