# Ram Prakash Achari Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 54
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Renu Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prakash-achari-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50375
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Family Court Act, 1984
- Section 19(4) - Revision, The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Divorce ,
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
section 125 - Order for maintenance of
wives, children and parents, Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Section12 - Dowry
prohibition Act,1961 - Section 3/4 ,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A,
323, 504 - as per Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, the second marriage is void and
such marriages are illegal as per the
provisions of the Act, but still they are not
immoral and financially dependent women
cannot be denied maintenance on this
ground - interpretation of expression wife
- broad and expansive interpretation
should be give to the term wife - include
even those cases where a man and woman
7 All. Ram Prakash Achari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
55
are living for long period of time as
husband wife. (Para - 10)
Maintenance application 15-b moved by
applicant/revisionist - rejected by Family Court -
opposite party no.2 legally wedded wife -
Husband alive - their marriage not yet dissolved
by any court - moved application No.22-B -
claim - revisionist solemnized marriage with her
- hiding facts of his first marriage and two sons
- evidence presented indicates - opposite party
no.2 continues to live with revisionist as his wife
- legality of her divorce from her first husband
and her marriage to the current revisionist to be
proven during the trial.(Para - 2,6,9)

HELD:- Maintenance application by opposite
party no.2 should not be thrown out at the
threshold without considering the merit of the
case, as it is a matter of evidence. Order of
Family Court passed on the application No.15-B
moved by revisionist, suffers with no illegality,
infirmity or irregularity. (Para - 11)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) The
appellant
shall
not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate
with investigation /trial.

(iv) The appellant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(v) The appellant shall remain
present before the trial court on each
date fixed, either personally or through
his counsel. In case of his absence, the
trial court may proceed against him
under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal
Code.

(vi) In case, the appellant
misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in
order
to
secure
his
presence,
proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the appellant fails to appear
before the court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against him, in
accordance with law, under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The appellant shall remain
present, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
appellant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

18. The trial court is also directed to
expedite the trial of the aforesaid case,
within a period of one year from today, by
following the provisions of Section 309
Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in
case there is no other legal impediment.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 54
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2023

Ram Prakash Achari ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ashish Chaturvedi, Anilesh Tewari, Desh
Deepak Singh

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

(A) Criminal Law - Family Court Act, 1984
- Section 19(4) - Revision, The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Divorce ,
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
section 125 - Order for maintenance of
wives, children and parents, Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Section12 - Dowry
prohibition Act,1961 - Section 3/4 ,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A,
323, 504 - as per Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, the second marriage is void and
such marriages are illegal as per the
provisions of the Act, but still they are not
immoral and financially dependent women
cannot be denied maintenance on this
ground - interpretation of expression wife
- broad and expansive interpretation
should be give to the term wife - include
even those cases where a man and woman
7 All. Ram Prakash Achari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
55
are living for long period of time as
husband wife. (Para - 10)
Maintenance application 15-b moved by
applicant/revisionist - rejected by Family Court -
opposite party no.2 legally wedded wife -
Husband alive - their marriage not yet dissolved
by any court - moved application No.22-B -
claim - revisionist solemnized marriage with her
- hiding facts of his first marriage and two sons
- evidence presented indicates - opposite party
no.2 continues to live with revisionist as his wife
- legality of her divorce from her first husband
and her marriage to the current revisionist to be
proven during the trial.(Para - 2,6,9)

HELD:- Maintenance application by opposite
party no.2 should not be thrown out at the
threshold without considering the merit of the
case, as it is a matter of evidence. Order of
Family Court passed on the application No.15-B
moved by revisionist, suffers with no illegality,
infirmity or irregularity. (Para - 11)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Rameshchandra
Rampratapji
Daga
Vs
Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga

2. Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh
Kushwaha

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ashish Chaturvedi & Shri
Desh Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the
revisionist, Shri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned
A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under section
19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 has been
filed against the order dated 22.09.2022
passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Faizabad, in Criminal Misc. Case
No.388 of 2016 (Priyanka Achari Vs. Ram
Prakash Achari), by which the application
No.15-B moved by the revisionist in the trial
court
concerned,
challenging
the
maintainability of the petition filed by the
respondent no.2, claiming maintenance has
been, rejected.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the revisionist that as per settled
proposition of law of section 125 Cr.P.C.
only the legally wedded wife can claim the
maintenance from her husband. Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad,
considered the aadhar card of the opposite
party no.2 as only basis to conclude that the
opposite party no.2 is prima-facie wife of
the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 is
the legally wedded wife of one Lavkush
Shukla and the decree of divorce has not
been taken as per procedure under section
13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The opposite
party no.2 herself alleged to be the second
wife of revisionist and no proof of
dissolution of her first marriage is ever
produced in the concerned court below.
Hence the order passed by the court below
is perverse and against evidence on record,
therefore, it is liable to be set-aside.

4. Per contra learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 submitted that opposite
party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of
revisionist,
as
the
marriage
of
the
revisionist and opposite party no.2 was
solemnized on 08.06.2010 with their
consent as per Hindu Rites and Rituals in
the presence of both the families and their
relatives etc. and at the time of marriage the
father of opposite party no.2 has given gifts
according to his capacity. It is further
submitted that revisionist has not disclosed
the facts that Leelawati Pandey, daughter of
Sitaram Pandey was the first wife of the
revisionist and after the death of his first
wife
on
21.06.2009
the
revisionist
solemnized the marriage with opposite
party no.2 on 08.06.2010. The opposite
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party no.2 was firstly married with Lavkush
Shukla on 10.05.2005 and due to some
dispute both of them decided to take
divorce on the ground of mutual consent
and a petition for dissolution of marriage
was moved by both the parties in the court
of Judge Family Court, Court No.3,
Ahamedabad
Gujarat.
Thereafter,
on
15.01.2007 the application for execution of
petition for dissolution of marriage was
moved by both the parties and their
marriage was got dissolved vide order
dated
15.01.2007.
Thereafter,
the
revisionist solemnized the marriage with
opposite party no.2. In aadhar card,
electoral card, pass book of bank etc., the
name of revisionist is entered as husband of
opposite party no.2 and copies thereof are
filed with counter affidavit. The revisionist
and
his
family
members
physically
harassed and beaten the opposite party no.2
on 02.08.2011 at about 5.00 P.M. and
detained her in a room. In the night she
reached to the house of her parents and
narrated the entire story to her family
members. Thereafter, a complaint case
bearing No.1232 of 2011, under section 12
of Domestic Violence Act was filed at
Police Station Kotwali, District Faizabad.
Objections were filed by the brother of
revisionist Ved Prakash Achari and Deepak
Achari and the A.C.J.M.-3 Ayodhya passed
the order dated 12.04.2017 in favour of
opposite party no.2. Brothers of revisionist
namely Ved Prakash Achari and Deepak
Achari filed a Criminal Revision, bearing
No.41 of 2017 in the court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Faizabad,
which was rejected on merits vide order
dated 29.09.2017. Thereafter, the opposite
party no.2 has filed FIR bearing Case
Crime No.1224 of 2011, under sections
498-A, 323, 504, IPC, and section 3/4 D.P.
Act. Police Station Kotwali, District
Faizabad, in which charge sheet has been
filed against the revisionist and others.
Being second legally wedded wife of the
revisionist the present application under
section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved for
maintenance
disclosing
all
the
facts
regarding dissolution of first marriage,
which was considered by the Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad
and appropriate order was passed on
22.09.2022. It is further submitted by
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that
there is no illegality in the order passed by
the
learned
Magistrate,
hence
the
revisionist is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the rival submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

6. Application 15-B is moved by the
applicant/revisionist in the court concerned
contention that Priyanka Achari (opposite
party no.2) is the legally wedded wife of
Lavkush Shukla. Lavkush Shukla is alive
and their marriage is not yet dissolved by
any court. The wife of revisionist Leelawati
Achari was died in the year 2009, leaving
two children Abhinav Achari and Ayushi
Achari.
Learned
Additional
Principal
Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, considered
the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the revisionist as well as the
counsel for opposite party no.2. On the
contrary the opposite party no.2 moved
application No.22-B in the trial court
stating that revisionist solemnized marriage
with her hiding the facts of his first
marriage and two son and she is living with
the revisionist as his legally wedded wife.

7. Learned trial court relying upon the
aadhar card, voter card and the pass book
of SBI Bank, wherein the name of
revisionist is mentioned as husband of
opposite party no.2, hold that the opposite
7 All. Ram Prakash Achari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
57
party no.2 is apparently wife of the
revisionist. It is also mentioned in the
impugned judgment that aadhar card of
opposite party no.2, which was got
prepared has been rejected by Regional
Office, Lucknow. Voter card (Annexure
No.2) reveals that Ram Prakash Achari is
mentioned as the name of the husband of
opposite party no.2 and voter card itself
was issued on 14.10.2010. In aadhar card
also the name of present revisionist is
mentioned as husband of opposite party
no.2. However, it is submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionist that aadhar card
of opposite party no.2 has been cancelled
on the application moved on behalf of the
revisionist. Annexure no.1 is the order
passed
by
the
Family
Court
No.3,
Ahamedbad Gujarat dated 15.01.2007, by
which the concerned court has dismissed
the case on the basis of agreement of
divorce. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that this paper is not decree of
divorce. This paper does not disclosed
which of the case is dismissed. The
agreement of divorce is not annexed with
the counter affidavit. However, it transpires
from annexure no.3, which is the order
passed by A.C.J.M.-3, Faizabad dated
12.04.2017 that Case No.1224 of 2011 was
rejected on the basis of agreement on non
judicial stamp of Rs.100/-. It is true that
decree of divorce is not on record, but
revisionist has not denied that opposite
party no.2 was not living with him. The
only objection is that opposite party no.2
did not obtained valid decree of divorce
from her first husband, therefore, there was
no possibility of legal marriage with
present revisionist.

8. Opposite party no.2 filed annexure
no.2 with supplementary counter affidavit,
which is statement of Deepak Achari son of
Ram Krishna Achari (real brother of
revisionist), in which he is stated on oath
that "रामप्रकाश आचारी मेरा सर्ा भाई है। परन्तु मै तथा मेरी
पत्नी कृष्णा मााँ डवमला व भाई वेद प्रकाश अलर् रहते हैं। यडद
रामप्रकाश ने डदनांक 08-06-10 को डहन्दू रीडत के मुताडबक
डप्रयंका आचारी से शादी डकया था दोनो के बीच डकसी मामले को
लेकर मतभेद हो र्या डिस कारण डप्रयंका आचारी को भाई
रामप्रकाश ने छो़ि डदया है। रामप्रकाश हम लोर्ो से अलर् रहता है।
डिस कारण डप्रयंका द्वारा डलिाया र्या एफ.आई.आर. में हम लोर्ो
को झूठा नाडमत कर डदया र्या है। इस प्रकार िुमग से इनकार करना
बताया।"। Annexure no.4 to the supplementary
counter affidavit of opposite party no.2 is
the pass book of state bank, in which
Priyanka Achari is shown as the wife of
Ram Prakash Achari. Few photographs are
also
annexed
as
annexure
no.4
of
supplementary counter affidavit.

9. The complete evidence produced,
goes to show that opposite party no.2
continue to live with the revisionist as his
wife. The legality divorce of opposite party
no.2 with her first husband and marriage
with present revisionist is the matter of
evidence to be produced at the time of trial.
At this stage it cannot be held that there is
no relationship between the parties. Aadhar
card of opposite party no.2 which is
cancelled on the application of revisionist
was issued in the year 2010 and revisionist
never tried to delete his name as husband of
opposite party no.2 in the aadhar card,
voter card, bank passbook of SBI, till
present dispute arise between the parties.

10. In the case of "Rameshchandra
Rampratapji Daga Vs. Rameshwari
Rameshchandra Daga" the apex court
held that as per Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
the second marriage is void and such
marriages are illegal as per the provisions
of the Act, but still they are not immoral
and financially dependent women cannot
be denied maintenance on this ground. In
Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kushwaha, the Apex Court interpreted the
meaning of expression wife and states that
broad and expansive interpretation should
be give to the term wife which would
include even those cases where a man and
woman are living for long period of time as
husband wife.

11. In the present scenario when the
revisionist was married to one Leelawati
who expired in the year 2009 and opposite
party no.2 who filed an agreement before
the court of law regarding dissolution of
marriage and after filing the contract of
dissolution of marriage in the court of law
she solemnized marriage with the present
revisionist. Now it is the matter of
evidence, whether opposite party no.2 is
entitled for maintenance or not. Therefore,
at the very outset it cannot be said that the
maintenance
application
moved
by
opposite party no.2 should be thrown out
at the very threshold, without going into
merit of the case. Learned trial court
discussed the above mentioned facts in the
impugned order. Hence the order of
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Faizabad, passed on the
application
No.15-B moved by revisionist, suffers
with no illegality, infirmity or irregularity,
hence the revision has no merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the present revision
is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 58
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 435 of 2007
Salik Singh & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sulabh Kr. Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 34,323, 325 & 504 - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 397/401 - Revision - For roping
the accused for the crime with the help of
Section 34 I.P.C. - prosecution must lead
evidence to prove that there was common
intention of all the accused to commit the
crime. (Para - 31)

(B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 34 - Acts done by several
persons
in
furtherance
of
common
intention - Section 34 I.P.C. requires a
common intention between the accused
and the person sought to be held liable for
an
offense
-
Unless
both
common
intention and participation are present,
Section 34 I.P.C. cannot be applied - Mere
proof that some accused persons were
with the main accused who inflicted fatal
injury on the deceased will not attract the
applicability
of
Section
34.
(Para
-
23,24,25,27)

Convictions of revisionists - conversion of
convictions into Sections 323/34 and 325/34 -
Prosecution
lacks
evidence
for
common
intention
or
pre-meeting
of
minds
for
committing crime - Appellate Court added
Section 34 I.P.C. in revisionist convictions -
violates
Sections
323
and
325
I.P.C.
-
revisionists not committed any offenses or been
convicted for any offenses since 1992 - crime
occurred in 1992 - more than 30 years elapsed -
both revisionists have died - both over 60 years
old.(Para -2,29,31,37)

HELD:- Revisionists' conviction set-aside. Trial
court's judgment upheld under Sections 323 and
325 I.P.C.. Appellate Court upholds exonerating
revisionists
under
Section
504
I.P.C..