# Rana Pratap Singh Revisionist v. Neetu Singh & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 906
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh - I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rana-pratap-singh-revisionist-v-neetu-singh-ors-opp-parties-51868
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125(4) & 397 -
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 15(3),
39 - Criminal Revision - Rana Pratap Singh Vs
Neetu Singh & Ors., Criminal Revision No. 1762
of 2023 - Revisionist challenged order dated
01.03.2023
granting
maintenance
of
Rs.
15,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 5,000/-
each to two children under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
alleging misappreciation of evidence and bar
under Section 125(4) due to wife's noncompliance with restitution of conjugal rights
decree. Court held: (1) Ex-parte decree under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, set aside by
Lok Adalat on 14.12.2019, was not in force,
negating the bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
(2) Allegations of wife's adultery or theft lacked
evidentiary support, as revisionist failed to
produce FIR, application, or WhatsApp message
screenshots, rendering claims unsubstantiated.
(3) Wife's lack of independent income, despite
B.Ed. qualification, and financial dependence on
parents justified maintenance; revisionist's claim
of her earning Rs. 40,000/- was unsupported
(Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324). (4)
Revisionist's gross salary of Rs. 65,773/- per
month (January 2023), as a CRPF constable,
was correctly considered without deductions for
non-statutory expenses like LIC premiums or
loan instalments (Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Smt.
Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129). (5) Maintenance
of Rs. 25,000/- total (Rs. 15,000/- for wife, Rs.
5,000/- each for children) was just, considering
children's educational expenses (Rs. 37,700/-
and Rs. 35,800/- annually) and other costs
(Rajathi Vs C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326).
Impugned
order
upheld;
no
illegality
or
jurisdictional error found. (Paras 12-27)

Criminal Revision Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

36. The present criminal revision is
partly
allowed
in
terms
of
above
mentioned conditions. The order impugned
dated 25.01.2023 is set aside in part and it
is modified according to the observation
made above.

37. The copy of the order be sent to
the trial Court concerned for necessary
compliance, forthwith.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 906
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2023

Rana Pratap Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
Neetu Singh & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Chandan Kumar Jaiswal

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125(4) & 397 -
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 15(3),
39 - Criminal Revision - Rana Pratap Singh Vs
Neetu Singh & Ors., Criminal Revision No. 1762
of 2023 - Revisionist challenged order dated
01.03.2023
granting
maintenance
of
Rs.
15,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 5,000/-
each to two children under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
alleging misappreciation of evidence and bar
under Section 125(4) due to wife's noncompliance with restitution of conjugal rights
decree. Court held: (1) Ex-parte decree under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, set aside by
Lok Adalat on 14.12.2019, was not in force,
negating the bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
(2) Allegations of wife's adultery or theft lacked
evidentiary support, as revisionist failed to
produce FIR, application, or WhatsApp message
screenshots, rendering claims unsubstantiated.
(3) Wife's lack of independent income, despite
B.Ed. qualification, and financial dependence on
parents justified maintenance; revisionist's claim
of her earning Rs. 40,000/- was unsupported
(Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324). (4)
Revisionist's gross salary of Rs. 65,773/- per
month (January 2023), as a CRPF constable,
was correctly considered without deductions for
non-statutory expenses like LIC premiums or
loan instalments (Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Smt.
Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129). (5) Maintenance
of Rs. 25,000/- total (Rs. 15,000/- for wife, Rs.
5,000/- each for children) was just, considering
children's educational expenses (Rs. 37,700/-
and Rs. 35,800/- annually) and other costs
(Rajathi Vs C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326).
Impugned
order
upheld;
no
illegality
or
jurisdictional error found. (Paras 12-27)

Criminal Revision Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Smt. Raj Kumari,
(1970) 3 SCC 129 (Para 20)

2. Rajathi Vs C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326
(Para 23)

3. Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Para 24)

4. Chander Parkash Bodh Raj Vs Shila Rani
Chander Prakash, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52
(Para 25)

5. Amit Kumar Kachhap Vs Sangeeta Toppo,
Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2023 (Ranchi HC)
(Para 5)

6. Balaram Dash Vs Smt. Gitanjali Dash, 2000
Cri. L.J. 4175 (Para 5)

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

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Chandan Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel
for the opposite parties.
4 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. Neetu Singh & Ors.
907

2. By means of the instant criminal
revision, the revisionist has assailed the
impugned judgment and order dated
01.03.2023 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case
No. 657 of 2018 (Neetu Singh and others
Vs. Rana Pratap Singh) filed under Section
125 Cr.P.C.

3. By the impugned judgment and
order, the trial court has allowed the
criminal case instituted by the opposite
party no.1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and
granted
maintenance
allowance
of
Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite party
no. 1 (wife) and Rs. 5000/- each to her
children i.e opposite party no. 2, Keerti
Singh, and opposite party no. 3, Krishna
Singh from the date of filing of the criminal
case. The opposite party nos.2 and 3 were
provided maintenance till they attain the
age of majority.

4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionist that the trial
Court has passed the impugned order
against the weight of evidence on record as
well as law applicable to the facts of the
case. The trial court has misread and
misinterpreted the documentary as well as
oral evidence on record. The trial court has
not taken into consideration the fact that
without any fault of the revisionist, the
opposite party no.1 was residing away from
him. It has also been submitted that a
decree for restitution of conjugal rights was
passed by the concerned Family Court
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
against the opposite party no.1 still she
failed to live with the revisionist and
perform her matrimonial duties, therefore
her rights to maintenance allowance against
the revisionist is barred under Section 125
(4) Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted
that while determining the amount of
maintenance allowance, the trial Court has
not taken into consideration the monthly
income of the revisionist.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has relied on the following judgments of
the different High Courts:

(i) Amit Kumar Kachhap vs.
Sangeeta Toppo passed in Criminal
Revision No.512 of 2023 (Ranchi High
Court).

(ii) Balaram Dash vs. Smt.
Gitanjali Dash and others; 2000 CRI.
L.J. 4175.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for
the opposite parties submits that the trial
Court has passed the impugned order after
proper
appreciation
of
oral
and
documentary evidence on record and it
should not be interfered with. It has also
been submitted that the revisionist is a
central government employee and was
getting monthly salary of Rs.83,910/- per
month in the year 2020 as it is mentioned
in the trial court order. Now his salary has
increased from that amount. It has also
been submitted that the parents of opposite
party no. 1 are bearing expenses of
opposite party nos. 1 to 3. The opposite
party no. 2, Keerti Singh, is studying in
Class
7th,
whose
annual
fees
is
Rs.37,700/- whereas opposite party no. 3,
Krishna Singh, is studying in Class 5th
and his annual fees is Rs. 35,800/-, their
expenses
for
books
stationary
and
transportation is in addition to this
amount. The opposite party no. 1 has filed
receipt of fees of opposite party nos. 2 and
3 with her counter affidavit. Learned
counsel for the opposite parties has relied
on the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex
Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another,
(2021) 2 SCC 324.
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The opposite party no.1 had filed
an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
with the averments that the opposite party
No.1, Neetu Singh, had married to the
revisionist,
Rana
Pratap
Singh
on
26.02.2008 according to Hindu Rites and
Rituals and from their wedlock, opposite
party no.2 and 3 were born. In the said
marriage, father of the opposite party no.1
had given gifts and cash as per his capacity.
The revisionist/husband and her in-laws
were not satisfied with the dowry given to
them in the marriage, they started beating
her and subjected her to physical and
mental harassment for coercing her to bring
a Honda City car from her parents in
dowry. After the birth of children, the
revisionist used to tell her that he is not
able to bear the expenses, therefore the
children should be kept in an orphanage or
sold to some rich person. When the
opposite party no.1 opposed the suggestion
of the revisionist, she was beaten by her
husband with kicks and fists and was also
confined in the room. After living for some
years in village, the revisionist took
opposite party no.1 and his parents to
Gandhinagar, Tamil Nadu where they
stayed in their own house situated near
CRPF camp. On 09.04.2018, the revisionist
abused and severely beat the opposite party
no. 1 and forcibly took her by train and left
her near her parental home. The opposite
party no. 1 told her mother about the
conduct of his husband. She went with her
mother to police station Gagaha but her
first information report was not registered
by the police. On 29.05.2018 she sent her
complaint through registered post to S.S.P.
Gorakhpur, but no action was taken by the
police. While she is staying in her parental
home, the revisionist has not provided
maintenance allowance for her children.
Further averment has been made that the
revisionist has enough fertile agricultural
land from which he has enough income.
The revisionist is a Constable in CRPF and
is earning 40,000/- per month salary. The
opposite party no. 1 has no source of
income to maintain herself and her
children.

8. The revisionist has admitted that
the opposite party no.1 is legally wedded
wife and opposite party nos.2 and 3 are his
daughter and son. He has also admitted that
he is doing job in CRPF. The revisionist
has stated that he did not receive any dowry
in the marriage. He has also denied that he
or his parents are physically or mentally
tortured her for getting a Honda City car in
dowry. He has also admitted that after
marriage, she started staying in Tamil Nadu
where revisionist was doing his job. In his
written statement, the revisionist has stated
that he has purchased two plots in the name
of opposite party no. 1 and one plot in the
name of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. He has
also taken Life Insurance Policy in their
name and is paying premium of the policy.
The
revisionist
has
denied
that
on
09.04.2018, after beating the opposite party
no. 1, he forcibly took her and left her at
parental home and since then he has not
provided any maintenance allowance to his
wife and children. The revisionist has also
stated that she has done B.Ed course and
she is working in a private school as
teacher and earns about Rs.40,000/- as
salary as well as taking tuitions of children.

9.

From
the
pleadings
and
documentary evidence of the parties, the
Principal Judge, Family Court/trial court
has framed following four issues:-

(i) Whether the applicant no. 1,
Neetu Singh, is legally wedded wife of the
revisionist and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are
their children born from their wedlock ?
4 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. Neetu Singh & Ors.
909

(ii) Whether the applicant no. 1 is
residing away from the revisionist due to
reasonable and justified cause ?

(iii) Whether the applicant No.1
does not have sufficient source of income
to maintain herself and her children ?

(iv) Whether the applicants are
entitled to any relief, if yes how much and
from whom and from when ?

10. Regarding the issue no.1, there is
no dispute between the parties, opposite
party No.1 (Rana Pratap Singh) has
admitted that applicant-Neetu Singh was
married with him in the year 2008 and from
their wedlock two children, namely, Keerti
Singh and Krishna Singh were born.
Regarding issue no.2, he has pleaded the
rights of the applicant-Neetu Singh for
maintenance allowance is barred under
Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C.

11. Regarding the above mentioned
issue no.2, revisionist has pressed the fact
that he had filed Case No.264 of 2018,
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
against his wife in the Family Court, Mau.
The
Family
Court
passed
ex-parte
judgment and order dated 24.01.2019 in
favour of the revisionist, the opposite party
No.1 did not comply with the same and has
not resided with him in compliance of the
aforesaid order, therefore, her right for
maintenance is barred under Section 125
(4) Cr.P.C.

12. In rebuttal of the aforesaid
averments of the revisionist, the opposite
party No.1 has filed copy of order
14.12.2019, 'paper no. 33 kha to 35 kha'
from which, it transpires that by instituting
an application, the opposite party No.1 got
the execution proceedings of aforesaid
exparte judgement and decree set aside in
the Lok Adalat.

13. The revisionist has also pleaded,
in his written statement, that his wife has
illicit relation with his younger brother,
therefore, her right for maintenance is
barred under the provision of Section 125
(4) Cr.P.C.

14. Regarding the existence of
aforesaid ex-parte judgment and order
dated 24.01.2019, the revisionist has
pleaded, in his written statement, that
opposite party No.1 had filed Misc
Application for setting aside the aforesaid
ex-parte judgment and order. This misc
application was dismissed in default on
28.10.2021 and ex-parte order is still in
force, but revisionist had not filed certified
copy
of
the
aforesaid
order
dated
28.10.2021, therefore, pleadings of the
revisionist, in his written statement, in this
regard cannot be accepted whereas opposite
party No.1 had filed certified copy of the
order passed in Lok Adalat by which exparte judgment and order passed under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was set
aside.

15. From the above discussion, it can
be concluded that ex-parte judgement and
order passed under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act is not in force.

16. Revisionist has also pleaded that
he had lodged FIR against his wife in
Police Station Tank Factory, District
Chenni
for
leaving his
house
after
committed theft of cash, jewellery and
documents related to property. He has also
pleaded, in his written statement, that he
had submitted application in Police Station
Kant, District Gorakhpur regarding the
conduct of his wife, but he has not filed the
aforesaid FIR or application given to the
police authority regarding the offence
committed by his wife.
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17. Thus, allegation regarding his
wife fled from his house after stealing
jewellery and other items has not been
proved
or
substantiated
by
oral
or
documentary evidence adduced by him in
the trial Court. He has also pleaded in his
written statement that on 29.03.2018 at
9:00 A.M. a whatsapp message was sent
through the mobile of his younger brother
to his wife to leave her matrimonial home
with him. He informed to his mother about
the said message. On 29.03.2018, his wife,
in conspiracy with his younger brother, left
his house along with jewellery and cash
etc. In this regard, revisionist has not filed
screen short of the aforesaid whatsapp
message. There is ground to accept the
averments made by the revisionist that his
wife has left his house with his younger
brother and she is living in adultery with
him. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that
his wife is living in adultery with the
younger brother of the revisionist. Thus,
issue no.2 was rightly determined by the
trial Court in affirmative against the
revisionist.

18. Regarding issue no.3, the
revisionist has pleaded, in his written
statement filed against the application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that his wife has
done B.Ed., course in computer and
beautician. He has also pleaded that that his
wife earns about Rs.40,000/- per month by
taking tuitions and other professional
works, but he has not submitted any
documentary or oral evidence in this
regard. Opposite party No.1 has denied in
her application filed under Section 125
Cr.P.C. that she has no earning and she is
financially dependent on her parents.

19. Admittedly, revisionist is working
as constable in CRPF. Opposite party No.1
has filed his salary slip for the month of
January, 2023, in which, his monthly salary
has been shown as Rs.65,773/- The
revisionist has pleaded in his written
statement that his salary is only Rs.40,000/-
per month and after deduction of instalment
towards loan taken for purchasing land and
paying premium of LIC, he is receiving
only Rs. 28,446/- per month.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr.
Kulbhushan
Kumar
vs.
Smt.
Raj
Kumari: (1970) 3 SCC 129 has held that
only compulsory statutory deductions as
income tax can be reduced from the gross
salary. No deduction is permissible for
payment of LIC, home loan, instalments
towards payment of loan for purchasing
land or premium of policy of insurance.

21. Thus, the alleged deduction from
the gross salary of the revisionist/husband
due to payment for premium of insurance
or instalment of plots purchased by him
cannot be taken into consideration as no
such deduction from gross salary is
permissible under the law.

22.

Under
these
facts
and
circumstances, the monthly salary of the
revisionist is taken to be Rs.65,773/- in
January, 2023 as evidenced by the salary
slip filed by his wife in the trial Court.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC
326 has held that the words "unable to
maintain herself" would mean the means
available to the deserted wife while she was
living with her husband and would not take
within itself the efforts made by the wife
after the desertion to survive somehow.
Section 125 was enacted on the premise
that it is the obligation of the husband to
maintain his wife, children and parents. It
will, therefore, be for him to show that he
4 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. Neetu Singh & Ors.
911
has no monetary means to discharge his
obligation and he did not neglect or refuse
to maintain them or anyone of them. The
statement of the wife that she was unable to
maintain herself would be enough and it
would be for the husband to prove
otherwise.

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another,
(2021)
2
SCC
324
has
held
that
maintenance laws have been enacted as a
measure of social justice to provide succour
to dependant wives and children for their
financial support, so as to prevent them
from falling into destitution and vagrancy.
Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India
provides that:-

"Nothing in this article shall
prevent the State from making any special
provision for women and children.

Article
15(3)
reinforced
by
Article 39 of the Constitution of India,
which envisages a positive role for the
State in fostering change towards the
empowerment of women, led to the
enactment of various legislations from
time to time."

25. In the case of Chander Parkash
Bodh Raj vs. Shila Rani Chander
Prakash: 1968 SCC Online Del 52, the
Delhi High Court has held that :

"an able-bodied young man has
to be presumed to be capable of earning
sufficient money so as to be able to
reasonably maintain his wife and child
and he cannot be heard to say that he is
not in a position to earn enough to be
able to maintain them according to the
family standard. It is for such ablebodied person to show to the Court
cogent grounds for holding that he is
unable, for reasons beyond his control, to
earn enough to discharge his legal
obligation of maintaining his wife and
child."

26. The Apex Court has held that
while deciding the criminal revision against
the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
or corresponding section under Domestic
Violence Act, Court shall take only
consideration the present income of the
husband
and
wife
for
determining
maintenance payable to the wife and
children. Apart from the fees for school of
opposite party Nos.2 and 3, money is also
required for purchasing books, stationary,
conveyance to school and other expenses of
opposite party Nos.2 and 3. In this regard,
trial Court has provided Rs.15,000/- per
month to the opposite party No.1 and
Rs.5000/- each to the opposite party Nos.2
and 3, total of Rs.25,000/- per month,
which
cannot
be
considered
to
be
excessive. Thus, the trial Court has rightly
and justly fixed the maintenance allowance
payable to the opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

27. From the above discussion, I am
of the view that while passing the
impugned judgement and order, the trial
court has not committed any illegality,
irregularity,
jurisdictional
error
or
impropriety.

28. There is no merit in the criminal
revision and the same is liable to be
dismissed.

29. Accordingly, the criminal revision
is dismissed.

30. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
action.
----------
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 4 ILRA 912
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3032 of 2023

Matapher ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Sri Krishna
Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Pankaj
Dwivedi

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 125, 127 & 397 - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Revisionist
challenged orders dated 10.12.2019 granting Rs.
7,000/- monthly maintenance to opposite party no.
2 (wife) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and dated
07.12.2022 rejecting his application under Section
127 Cr.P.C. for modification, alleging non-marital
status and no liability for maintenance. Court held:
(1) Trial court correctly established marital status
based on oral testimony of wife, her brother, and
revisionist's
brother,
corroborated
by
public
documents
(Aadhar
card,
family
register,
educational certificates) showing revisionist as
husband
and
father,
with
presumption
of
genuineness under Section 114 of Indian Evidence
Act (Anju Garg Vs Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1314). (2) Revisionist's claim of nonmarriage and forged documents was unsupported,
as he filed no FIR or complaint against alleged
forgery, weakening his defence. (3) Maintenance
of Rs. 7,000/-, based on revisionist's pension of Rs.
34,656/-, was reasonable and below 25% of net
income as per precedent, even excluding disputed
agricultural income (Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Raj
Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129). (4) Rejection of
Section 127 Cr.P.C. application was justified, as
revisionist's claim of no agricultural income did not
alter his financial capacity to pay; wife's alleged
cultivation income was irrelevant to his obligation
(Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324). (5) Section
125 Cr.P.C., a social legislation, aims to prevent
destitution, and trial court's summary findings on
marital status and financial need were sound
(Chander Parkash Bodh Raj Vs Shila Rani Chander
Prakash, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52). Impugned
orders
upheld;
maintenance
payable
from
application date, with arrears in four instalments
within six months. (Paras 8-24)

Criminal Revision Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Anju Garg Vs Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1314 (Para 15)

2. Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena, (2015) 6
SCC 353 (Para 15)

3. Dukhtar Jahan Vs Mohd. Farooq, (1987) 1
SCC 624 (Para 15)

4. Vimala (K.) Vs Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2
SCC 375 (Para 15)

5. Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs St. of Guj., (1996) 4
SCC 479 (Para 15)

6. Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316
(Para 15)

7. Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs Veena
Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 (Para 15)

8. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs St. of Guj.,
(2005) 3 SCC 636 (Para 15)

9. Nagendrappa Natikar Vs Neelamma, (2014)
14 SCC 452 (Para 15)

10. Chander Parkash Bodh Raj Vs Shila Rani
Chander Prakash, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52
(Para 16)

11. Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Para
17)

12. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Raj Kumari, (1970) 3
SCC 129 (Para 19)