# Radheshyam @ Anil Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 508
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-15
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radheshyam-anil-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45007
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397/401 &
section
125-
examination-in-chief
of
wife was recorded- counsel for the
husband-revisionist did not appear-the
opportunity of her cross-examination of
wife was closed-the court grants at least
one
further
opportunity
to
crossexamine the wife. (Para 3 & 6)

The Court finds that though no serious
castigation against the impugned order may
be levelled and it cannot be said that the same
suffers from any element of perversity but
when the overall cause of justice is evaluated
and weighed and the principles of fairness and
equity are kept in perspective this Court
adopts a view which may not only meet the
ends of justice but may also result in adopting
a correct approach in order to arrive at the
ends of justice. Leaving a wife uncrossexamined is likely to result in creating obstacle
in correctly appreciating the evidence and to
that extent and in that context the approach
adopted by the court below may not be said to
be a correct one. (Para 6)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

## Text

508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can be referred to. Provisions of Section
125 Cr.P.C. have been engrafted in
Criminal Procedure Code for preventing
destitution or vagrancy and providing
succour to starving persons. It is to be
find out as to what is required by the wife
to maintain the standard of living which is
neither luxurious nor penury but is
modestly consistent with the status of
family. In the present case, learned lower
Court has awarded Rs. 2,500/- per month
has maintenance amount of revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has
submitted that from 2014 the revisionist is
living in mercy-full condition.

17. Learned lower court has awarded
Rs.2,500/- the maintenance amount for the
revisionist, accordingly Rs.83.33/- per day
comes to revisionist for her maintenance. At
present considering the price hike and higher
cost of living it cannot be presumed that
Rs.83.33/- is sufficient for a lady to maintain
herself. In my opinion, the amount fixed by
the court below is insufficient as according to
present scenario, the revisionist is entitled to
receive minimum Rs.5,000/- per month as
maintenance.

18.

Taking
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case
into
consideration, the judgment of court
below dated 22.7.2016 is liable to be
modified upto the extent that applicant is
entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- per month as
maintenance from the date of filing of
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

19. In the result, the revision is
allowed.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A508

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4167 OF 2019

Radheshyam @ Anil ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Vijay Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397/401 &
section
125-
examination-in-chief
of
wife was recorded- counsel for the
husband-revisionist did not appear-the
opportunity of her cross-examination of
wife was closed-the court grants at least
one
further
opportunity
to
crossexamine the wife. (Para 3 & 6)

The Court finds that though no serious
castigation against the impugned order may
be levelled and it cannot be said that the same
suffers from any element of perversity but
when the overall cause of justice is evaluated
and weighed and the principles of fairness and
equity are kept in perspective this Court
adopts a view which may not only meet the
ends of justice but may also result in adopting
a correct approach in order to arrive at the
ends of justice. Leaving a wife uncrossexamined is likely to result in creating obstacle
in correctly appreciating the evidence and to
that extent and in that context the approach
adopted by the court below may not be said to
be a correct one. (Para 6)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)

1. This revision has been preferred
with the prayer to set aside the impugned
order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the
4 All. Smt. Ranjan Singh & Ors. Vs. Shri Abbu Saeed & Ors.
509
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sant Kabir
Nagar in Case No.72/11/2018 (Bandana
Devi and another vs. Radheshyam @ Anil)
u/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali
Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar and
to direct the learned court below to give
opportunity to the revisionist to crossexamine the opposite party no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A.

3. Submission of counsel for the
revisionist is that opposite party no.2
Bandana, who is the wife of the
revisionist, had been produced in the
court and her examination-in-chief was
recorded but as the counsel for the
husband-revisionist did not appear, the
opportunity of her cross-examination was
closed. Further submission is that in the
absence of effective cross-examination
the cause of revisionist shall suffer
beyond repair and the fairness of the
proceedings will also get vitiated. It has
been further submitted that it is not only
in the interest of the husband-revisionist
but it shall also go to deprive the court
from appreciating the facts in correct
perspective. It has also been submitted
that an untested testimony becomes often
misleading and deceitful to be relied upon
and before the court should act upon the
deposition of a witness, it is very essential
to test the same on the anvil of crossexamination. Submission is that at least
one opportunity may be granted so that
the revisionist may cross-examine the
wife who is a very essential witness in the
case and the fate of the case will turn
upon the quality of her statement and the
evidentiary value which she shall carry.

4. Heard learned A.G.A. and
perused the record.

5. Ordinarily this Court would have
proceeded in the matter after issuance of
notice to the opposite side but in that
course the proceedings would have taken
much longer time as in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases where dockets are
already bursting on their seams, there is
no likelihood of this revision to be taken
up at an early date. Moreover, as the only
point involved in this case relates to the
principles of justice, equity and fairness
and no great point of law or fact is
involved, therefore, this Court deems it
proper to decide this revision at this very
stage so that the proceedings of the case
may get expedited and the matter may not
be allowed to shelve for a longer period of
time.

6. After perusing the impugned
order this Court finds that though no
serious castigation against the impugned
order may be levelled and it cannot be
said that the same suffers from any
element of perversity but when the overall
cause of justice is evaluated and weighed
and the principles of fairness and equity
are kept in perspective this Court adopts a
view which may not only meet the ends of
justice but may also result in adopting a
correct approach in order to arrive at the
ends of justice. Leaving a wife uncrossexamined is likely to result in creating
obstacle in correctly appreciating the
evidence and to that extent and in that
context the approach adopted by the court
below may not be said to be a correct one.
Moreover, perusal of the order-sheet also
shows that there have been many dates on
which even the wife did not appear in the
court and it cannot be said that the
liability for the delay was squarely on the
shoulders of the revisionist. This Court is
of the considered opinion that it shall go
to further the cause of justice and also
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall go to render assistance to the court to
appreciate the facts in the right and broader
perspective, if it grants at least one further
opportunity to cross-examine the wife.

7. Without going further into the
matter, this Court deems it appropriate to
direct that the revisionist shall move again
an application seeking the recall of
witness Bandana, whenever the case is
taken up again after mediation process. If
such an application is moved on behalf of
the revisionist, the court below will
proceed to summon aforesaid witness
Bandana and provide opportunity to the
husband-revisionist to cross-examine her.

8. The revisionist is also directed to
deposit
Rs.5000/-
as
a
matter
of
cost/expenses and this money shall be
given to the witness Bandana whenever
she appears for the purpose of crossexamination.

9. It is made clear that whenever
witness Bandana appears for crossexamination she shall be cross-examined
on that very day and no further
adjournment on behalf of revisionist shall
be sought or granted. If the opportunity of
cross-examination shall not be availed on
the first date for the reason of non
availability of the counsel or for any
reason which may be attributable to the
revisionist, her evidence shall stand
closed and the concerned court below
shall
thereafter
proceed
further
in
accordance with law.

10. As it appears from the impugned
order that the matter has already been
referred to the Mediation Centre, it is also
being clarified that this order shall come
into application only if the result of the
mediation is negative and the litigation
continues. But if the matter gets settled, it
goes without saying that there would be
no need either to move any such
application or to recall the witness for the
purpose of cross-examination.

11. The revision stands allowed in
aforesaid terms and the impugned order
so far as it relates to the refusal of Court
to summon the aforesaid witness for
cross-examination stands set aside.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A510

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

FAFO No. 604 of 2011
With
FAFO No. 433 of 2011

Smt. Ranjan Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Abbu Saeed & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Belendu Shekhar, Sri Aanand Mohan,
Sri Anil Kr. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri
Anil
Kumar
Srivastava,
Mohd.
Shamshad Khan, Sri M.S. Khan

A. Motor Accident claim - Motor Vehicles
Act (59 of 1988) - Sections 166 & 168 -
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects
-
Deceased in a permanent job - aged about
38 years - addition of 50% of actual salary
to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects (Para 25)

B. Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988)
Section 168 - Compensation - Tax
Deduction - Tribunal incorrectly made
income
tax
deduction