# Purushottam Das & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 926
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3560 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh - I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/purushottam-das-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51871
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section
125
-
Against
maintenance
allowance - In impugned order, trial court
noted that revisionist admitted in his
written St.ment that opposite party no.2,
as his wife and Master Harshit as their
son, from their wedlock and residing with
her parents for last two years, who bear
their
maintenance
and
educational
expenses - Trial court further observed
that revisionist no. 1, employed as Field
Officer in a nationalized bank, draws a
gross monthly salary of Rs.97,227.45/-,
and from that monthly salary, house rent
recovery, furniture recovery, housing loan,
car loan, income tax and contributory
pension fund is deducted - It is well
settled that only statutory deductions and
income tax can be considered while
computing net salary of Revisionist no. 1,
other deductions cannot be deducted from
gross salary - Considering maintenance of
opposite
party
no.2
and
her
son's
educational expenses, trial court rightly
awarded interim maintenance allowance
of Rs.3,000/- pm to opposite party no.2
and Rs.2,000/- pm to her minor son -
Thus, no illegality in impugned order,
criminal revision dismissed. (Para 20, 21)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. From the above discussion, I am
of the opinion that the trial court should
have allowed the application u/s 311
Cr.P.C. subject to payment of heavy cost.
The trial court has committed illegality in
rejecting the aforesaid application.

25.

The
criminal
revision
is
accordingly allowed subject to aforesaid
conditions regarding payment of cost and
completion of cross-examination of P.W.1
Balwant Singh on the same date.

26. The copy of the judgement be
forthwith sent to the trial court for
compliance.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 926
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3560 of 2023

Purushottam Das & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ray Sahab Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Umesh Chandra Prajapati

Criminal Law - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section
125
-
Against
maintenance
allowance - In impugned order, trial court
noted that revisionist admitted in his
written St.ment that opposite party no.2,
as his wife and Master Harshit as their
son, from their wedlock and residing with
her parents for last two years, who bear
their
maintenance
and
educational
expenses - Trial court further observed
that revisionist no. 1, employed as Field
Officer in a nationalized bank, draws a
gross monthly salary of Rs.97,227.45/-,
and from that monthly salary, house rent
recovery, furniture recovery, housing loan,
car loan, income tax and contributory
pension fund is deducted - It is well
settled that only statutory deductions and
income tax can be considered while
computing net salary of Revisionist no. 1,
other deductions cannot be deducted from
gross salary - Considering maintenance of
opposite
party
no.2
and
her
son's
educational expenses, trial court rightly
awarded interim maintenance allowance
of Rs.3,000/- pm to opposite party no.2
and Rs.2,000/- pm to her minor son -
Thus, no illegality in impugned order,
criminal revision dismissed. (Para 20, 21)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ajay Kumar Vs Lata Alias Sharuti & ors.,
(2019) 15 SCC 352

2. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs Atif Iqbal
Mansoori & anr., (2014) 10 SCC 736, (Paras 23
to 31)

3. Rajat Johar Vs Divya Johar, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 11790, (Paras 21, 22)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh - I, J.)

Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned
counsel for the revisionists and Sri Umesh
Chandra Prajapati, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2.

2. The instant criminal revision
has been instituted against the impugned
judgment and order dated 07.06.2023
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No. 1, Jhansi, in Criminal Appeal
No2. 98 of 2022 (Smt. Bharti Devi Vs.
State of U.P. and others) filed under
Section 29 of the Protection of Women
4 All. Purushottam Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
927
from
Domestic
Violence
Act,
2005
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act No. 43
of 2005')

3. By the impugned order, the
appellate court has set aside the order dated
01.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/FTC (CAW)/J.M., Jhansi
in Complaint Case No. 1023 of 2016 and
directed the revisionist to pay maintenance
allowance Rs. 3000/- per month to the
opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2000/- to her
son, Harshit, till he attains the age of
majority, from the date of order of the
(Junior Division)/FTC (CAW)/J.M., Jhansi
on 10th of each calender month.

4. By the aforesaid order, the trial
court has rejected the application under
Section 23 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by
the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Bharti Devi.

5. The avermment has been made on
behalf of the revisionist that the appellate
court had passed the order against the
weight of evidence on record and without
taking into consideration the provisions of
law. It has also been submitted that the
opposite party no. 2 had left the house of
the revisionist voluntarily without any
domestic violence committed by the
revisionist and his family members against
her. It has also been submitted that the
opposite party no. 2 did not fulfil her duties
as a wife in the house of the revisionist and
had misbehaved with the revisionist and his
family members. It has also been submitted
that the opposite party no. 2 has filed
Maintenance Case No. 34 of 2015 (Smt.
Bharti Devi Vs. Purushottam Das) under
Section 125 CrPC in which the court has
granted
Rs.
9,000/-
as
maintenance
allowance to the opposite parties. The
opposite party no. 2 is not prepared to
reside with revisionist no. 1, therefore she
is not entitled for maintenance.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the
criminal revision making averment that the
appellate court has passed the impugned
order considering the evidence on record as
well as the law applicable to the facts of the
case, therefore no interference in the
impugned order by this Court is warranted.

7. Facts of this case which are
necessary for disposal of the criminal
revision are that the revisionist no. 1,
Purushottam Das, was married to opposite
party no. 2, Smt. Bharti Devi, on
26.02.2009 according to Hindu Rites and
Customs in Jhansi. The revisionist no. 1,
Purushottam Das, was an employee in a
nationalized bank at Punjab. In the
matrimonial home of Smt. Bharti Devi, the
revisionist no. 1, her husband and other
family members used to harass her for
getting a four wheeler in dowry. Three four
months after staying at her matrimonial
home the revisionist took her to Punjab
where he was in a bank job. Thereto, the
revisionist no. 1 used to beat his wife and
torture physically and mentally for getting
a four wheeler in dowry and during her
pregnancy, he did not look after her and the
expenses of delivery was borne by the
parents of Smt. Bharti Devi. When the
opposite party no. 2 raised objection, the
revisionist beat her with iron rod and on
05.12.2015 he expelled her along with her
child from her matrimonial home. The
revisionist no. 1 works as Field Officer in a
nationalised bank and is getting Rs.
60,000/- as monthly salary.

8. The revisionist no.1 has admitted
that the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Bharti
Devi, is legally wedded wife and her minor
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
son, Harshit has been born from their
wedlock. The revisionist no. 1 has also
submitted that he is getting Rs. 36,000/- per
month as salary

9. The opposite party no. 2, Smt.
Bharti Devi, has submitted in her interim
maintenance
application
filed
under
Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005 that
she is dependent on her parents for
maintenance of herself and her minor son
for the last two years. She also submitted
that her husband is earning Rs. 60,000/- per
month as salary, therefore maintenance
allowance of Rs. 20,000/- be granted to
herself and her minor son for educational
expenses of tuition fees, school dress and
conveyance charges.

10. In his objection, the revisionist no.
1 has stated that in the case filed by Smt.
Bharti Devi under Section 125 CrPC, the
trial
court
had
granted
maintenance
allowance Rs. 5000/- and 4,000/- to the
opposite party no. 2 and 3, respectively.
The opposite party no. 2 is educated and
double MA and is earning about Rs.10,00015,000/- per month by taking tuition.

11. I have heard learned counsel for
the revisionists, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for
the State and perused the record including
the impugned order.

12. Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of
2005 empowers the Magistrate to pass such
interim order as he deems just and proper.
Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005 reads
as follows :-

23.
Power
to
grant
interim and ex parte orders.-

1. In any proceeding before him
under this Act, the Magistrate may pass
such interim order as he deems just and
proper.

2. If the Magistrate is satisfied
that an application prima facie discloses
that the respondent is committing, or has
committed an act of domestic violence or
that there is a likelihood that the respondent
may commit an act of domestic violence,
he may grant an ex parte order on the basis
of the affidavit in such form, as may be
prescribed, of the aggrieved person under
section 18 , section 19, section 20, section
21 or, as the case may be, section 22
against the respondent.

13. Section 23 read with Section
20 of the Act No. 43 of 2005 empowers the
Magistrate to provide monetary relief to
meet the expenses incurred and losses
suffered by the aggrieved person and any
child of the aggrieved person as a result of
the domestic violence. Section 20 of the
Act No. 43 of 2005 empowers the
Magistrate to direct the respondent to pay
monetary relief to meet the expenses
incurred and losses suffered by the
aggrieved person and any child of the
aggrieved person as a result of the domestic
violence.

14. Section 12 read with Sections
20 and 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005 reveals
that in an application under Section 12 of
the Act No. 43 of 2005, the Magistrate can
provide the interim monetary relief for
maintenance allowance granted to an
aggrieved person by order passed under
Section 125 CrPC or any other law for the
time being in force.

15. In Ajay Kumar Vs. Lata Alias
Sharuti and others, (2019) 15 SCC 352,
the Apex Court held that considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
Magistrate is competent to provide interim
4 All. Purushottam Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
929
monetary relief to the aggrieved person of
domestic violence. The quantum of the
interim maintenance allowance shall be
taken into consideration while deciding the
case.

16. In Juveria Abdul Majid Patni
Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another,
(2014) 10 SCC 736, the Apex Court has
propounded the law relating to interim
maintenance as provided under Section 23
of the Act No. 43 of 2005. The Apex Court
has observed as under :-

23. In the instant case, the
appellant sought relief under Sections 18
to 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
It includes protection order under Section
18, monetary relief under Section 20,
custody
orders
under
Section
21,
compensation under Section 22 and
interim relief under Section 23. The
relevant provisions read as follows:

"20.Monetary reliefs.-(1) While
disposing of an application under subsection (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate
may direct the respondent to pay monetary
relief to meet the expenses incurred and
losses suffered by the aggrieved person
and any child of the aggrieved person as a
result of the domestic violence and such
relief may include, but is not limited to-

(a) the loss of earnings;

(b) the medical expenses;

(c) the loss caused due to the
destruction, damage or removal of any
property from the control of the aggrieved
person; and

(d) the maintenance for the
aggrieved person as well as her children,
if any, including an order under or in
addition to an order of maintenance under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other
law for the time being in force.

(2) The monetary relief granted
under this section shall be adequate, fair
and reasonable and consistent with the
standard of living to which the aggrieved
person is accustomed.
 (3) The Magistrate shall have
the power to order an appropriate lump
sum payment or monthly payments of
maintenance,
as
the
nature
and
circumstances of the case may require.

(4) The Magistrate shall send a
copy of the order for monetary relief made
under sub-section (1) to the parties to the
application and to the in-charge of the
police station within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.

(5) The respondent shall pay the
monetary relief granted to the aggrieved
person within the period specified in the
order under sub-section (1).

(6) Upon the failure on the part
of the respondent to make payment in
terms of the order under sub-section (1),
the Magistrate may direct the employer or
a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay
to the aggrieved person or to deposit with
the court a portion of the wages or
salaries or debt due to or accrued to the
credit of the respondent, which amount
may be adjusted towards the monetary
relief payable by the respondent."
 The monetary relief as stipulated
under Section 20 is different from
maintenance, which can be in addition to
an order of maintenance under Section
125 CrPC or any other law. Such
monetary relief can be granted to meet the
expenses incurred and losses suffered by
the aggrieved person and child of the
aggrieved person as a result of the
domestic violence, which is not dependent
on the question whether the aggrieved
person, on the date of filing of the
application under Section 12 is in a
domestic relationship with the respondent.
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. "22.Compensation orders.-
In addition to other reliefs as may be
granted under this Act, the Magistrate
may on an application being made by the
aggrieved person, pass an order directing
the respondent to pay compensation and
damages for the injuries, including mental
torture and emotional distress, caused by
the acts of domestic violence committed by
that respondent.

23.Power to grant interim and ex
parte orders.-(1) In any proceeding
before him under this Act, the Magistrate
may pass such interim order as he deems
just and proper.

(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied
that an application prima facie discloses
that the respondent is committing, or has
committed an act of domestic violence or
that there is a likelihood that the
respondent may commit an act of domestic
violence, he may grant an ex parte order
on the basis of the affidavit in such form,
as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved
person under Section 18, Section 19,
Section 20, Section 21 or, as the case may
be, Section 22 against the respondent."

Therefore, it is well within the
jurisdiction of the Magistrate to grant the
interim ex parte relief as he deems just
and proper, if the Magistrate is satisfied
that the application prima facie discloses
that the respondent is committing, or has
committed an act of domestic violence or
that there is a likelihood that the
respondent may commit an act of domestic
violence.

25. It is not necessary that relief
available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21
and 22 can only be sought for in a
proceeding under the Domestic Violence
Act, 2005. Any relief available under the
aforesaid provisions may also be sought
for in any legal proceeding even before a
civil court and Family Court, apart from
the criminal court, affecting the aggrieved
person whether such proceeding was
initiated
before
or
after
the
commencement of the Domestic Violence
Act. This is apparent from Section 26 of
the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as quoted
hereunder:

"26.Relief in other suits and
legal
proceedings.-(1)
Any
relief
available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21
and 22 may also be sought in any legal
proceeding, before a civil court, Family
Court or a criminal court, affecting the
aggrieved person and the respondent
whether such proceeding was initiated
before or after the commencement of this
Act.

(2) Any relief referred to in subsection (1) may be sought for in addition
to and along with any other relief that the
aggrieved person may seek in such suit or
legal proceeding before a civil or criminal
court.

(3) In case any relief has been
obtained by the aggrieved person in any
proceedings other than a proceeding
under this Act, she shall be bound to
inform the Magistrate of the grant of such
relief."

26. The appellant has filed an
FIR against the first respondent for the
offence committed under Section 498-A
IPC. The High Court refused to quash the
FIR qua first respondent on the ground
that prima facie case has been made out.
Even before the criminal court where
such case under Section 498-A is pending,
if allegation is found genuine, it is always
open to the appellant to ask for reliefs
under Sections 18 to 22 of the Domestic
Violence Act and interim relief under
Section 23 of the said Act.

27. In V.D. Bhanot v. Savita
Bhanot [(2012) 3 SCC 183 : (2012) 2 SCC
(Civ) 53 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 102] , this
4 All. Purushottam Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
931
Court held that the conduct of the parties
even prior to the coming into force of the
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 could be taken into
consideration while passing an order
under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. The
wife who had shared a household in the
past, but was no longer residing with her
husband can file a petition under Section
12 if subjected to any act of domestic
violence. In V.D. Bhanot [(2012) 3 SCC
183 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2012) 2
SCC (Cri) 102] this Court held as follows:
(SCC pp. 186-87, para 12)

"12. We agree with the view
expressed by the High Court that in
looking into a complaint under Section 12
of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the
parties even prior to the coming into force
of the PWD Act, could be taken into
consideration while passing an order
under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In
our view, the Delhi High Court has also
rightly held that even if a wife, who had
shared a household in the past, but was no
longer doing so when the Act came into
force, would still be entitled to the
protection of the PWD Act, 2005."

28. In Inderjit Singh Grewal
[Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab,
(2011) 12 SCC 588 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ)
742 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 614] the
appellant Inderjit Singh and Respondent 2
of the said case got married on 23-9-1998.
The parties to the marriage could not pull
on well together and decided to get divorce
and, therefore, filed a case for divorce by
mutual consent under Section 13-B of the
Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955.
After
recording the statement in the said case,
the proceedings were adjourned for a
period of more than six months to enable
them to ponder over the issue. The parties
again appeared before the Court on
second motion and on the basis of their
statement, the District Judge, Ludhiana
vide judgment and order dated 20-3-2008
allowed the petition and dissolved their
marriage. After dissolution of marriage,
the wife filed a complaint before the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Ludhiana against Inderjit Singh under the
provisions of the Domestic Violence Act
alleging that the decree of divorce
obtained by them was a sham transaction.
It was further alleged that even after
getting divorce both of them had been
living together as husband and wife. In
the said case, the Superintendent of
Police, City I conducted the full-fledged
inquiry and reported that the parties had
been living separately after the dissolution
of the marriage. Hence, no case was made
out against Inderjit Singh. In this context,
this
Court
held
that
Section
12
"application to Magistrate" under the
Domestic Violence Act challenging the
said divorce was not maintainable and in
the interest of justice and to stop the abuse
of process of court, the petition under
Section 482 CrPC was allowed. The law
laid down in the said case is not applicable
for the purpose of determination of the
present case.

29. In the present case, the
alleged domestic violence took place
between January 2006 and 6-9-2007 when
FIR No. 224 of 2007 was lodged by the
appellant under Sections 498-A and 406
IPC against the first respondent and his
relatives. In a writ petition filed by the first
respondent the High Court refused to
quash the said FIR against him observing
that prima facie case under Section 498-A
was made out against him. Even if it is
accepted that the appellant during the
pendency of the SLP before this Court has
obtained ex parte "khula" (divorce) under
the Muslim Personal Law from the Mufti
on 9-5-2008, the petition under Section 12
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is
maintainable.

30. An act of domestic violence
once committed, subsequent decree of
divorce will not absolve the liability of the
respondent from the offence committed or
to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved
person is entitled under the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 including monetary
relief under Section 20, child custody
under Section 21, compensation under
Section 22 and interim or ex parte order
under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.

31. Both the Sessions Judge and
the High Court failed to notice the
aforesaid provisions of the Act and the
fact that the FIR was lodged much prior
to the alleged divorce between the parties
and erred in holding that the petition
under Section 12 was not maintainable.

17. The Act No. 43 of 2005 provides
monetary interim relief under Section 23 of
the Act to aggrieved person including a
child who has been subjected to domestic
violence. It is not essential that at the time
of claiming relief under Section 12 of the
Act, the aggrieved person is in domestic
relationship with the opposite party herein
revisionist.

18. In Rajat Johar Vs. Divya Johar,
2017 SCC OnLine Del 11790, Delhi Court
has observed as under :-

21. Since the respondent and her
minor son are to be maintained by the
petitioner, in the absence of denial of
existence of the marriage and denial of
paternity of the minor son, who is stated to
be requires constant medical treatment and
supervision, the petitioner cannot shy away
from his statutory obligation of maintaining
his legally wedded wife and his minor son.

22. The monetary relief
as
provided under the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is
different from maintenance, which can be
in addition to an order of maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law,
and can be granted to meet the expenses
incurred and losses suffered by the
aggrieved person and child of the aggrieved
person as a result of the domestic violence,
and the question whether the aggrieved
person, on the date of filing of the
application under Section 12 of DV Act
was in a domestic relationship with the
respondent is irrelevant.

19. Section 2 of the Act No. 43 of
2005 defines "aggrieved person" and
"child" as follows :-

(a) "aggrieved person" means any
woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who
alleges to have been subjected to any act of
domestic violence by the respondent;

(b) "child" means any person
below the age of eighteen years and
includes any adopted, step or foster child;

20. In the impugned order, the trial
court has considered the fact that the
revisionist husband has admitted in his
written statement that opposite party no. 2,
Smt. Bharti Devi, is his wife and master
Harshit is his son from their wedlock and
for the last two years, Smt. Bharti Devi is
living separately from the revisionist no. 1
at her parental home and their maintenance
and educational expenses of child Harshit
is borne by her parents. The trial court has
also taken into consideration that the
revisionist no. 1 is working as field officer
in a nationalized bank and has taken into
consideration the salary slip, paper no. 12B filed by the revisionist no. 1, Purshottam
4 All. Smt. Mewati Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
933
Das, according to which, his gross salary is
Rs.97,227.45/- and from that monthly
salary, house rent recovery, furniture
recovery, housing loan, car loan, income
tax, contributory pension fund and income
tax is being deducted.

21. It is settled law that only statutory
deductions as well as income tax can be
taken into consideration while determining
the net salary of the revisionist no. 1. The
payments made on other heads cannot be
deducted
from
his
gross
salary.
Considering the maintenance of opposite
party no. 2, Smt. Bharti Devi and
educational expenses of her son, the trial
court has fixed Rs.3000/- per month to the
opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- to her
minor
son
as
interim
maintenance
allowance.

22. From the above, the provision for
interim maintenance is a social welfare
measure. It is provided to protect the minor
children and old parents from hunger
destitution and vagrancy.

23. From above discussion, I am of the
considered view that while granting Rs.
3000/- to opposite party no. 2, Smt. Bharti
Devi and Rs. 2000/- to her son,Harshit, as
maintenance allowance, the trial court has
not committed any illegality or irregularity
or jurisdictional error. There is no merit in
the criminal revision. The criminal revision
is dismissed. However, I clarify that the
present order as well as orders which have
been passed by the appellate court shall not
come in the way of a final adjudication on
the merits of the complaint by the
Magistrate in accordance with law. The
interim maintenance allowance shall be paid
till 10th of each month. The arrears shall be
paid over within a period of four months
from today by equal monthly instalments.

24. Let the copy of this order be sent
to the trial court/court concerned for
communication.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 933
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3867 of 2019

Smt. Mewati Devi & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Sri Atmaram
Nadiwal, Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Sri
Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, Sri Shesh
Narain Mishra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
161 & 227 - Against framing of charge -
From perusal of trial court records, it
transpired
that
on
application
of
informant,
trial
court
vide
directed
framing of charges u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act - Against this,
accused filed Application U/s 482, wherein
High Court directed applicants to file
discharge application before trial court for
decision as per law - In compliance of
order
of
High
Court,
accused
filed
application for discharge from charge, trial
court vide impugned order held that
charge u/s 304-B is not made out and
modified charge after dropping Section
304-B IPC and passed order by framing
charge u/s 498-A and 302 IPC - Held,
death of deceased took place after more
than seven years of her marriage with