# Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2190
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-23
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 12198 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjeet-singh-v-neetu-singh-54495
- **Pages:** 19

## Text

_Characters 0–39,853 of 66,100. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39853 for what follows._

2190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. The argument raised on behalf of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 that,
even if a matter is transferred from Family Court to Gram Nyayalaya for appropriate disposal, then the
same falls within the jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalaya, as conferred in Part II of the First Schedule and
therefore, the Gram Nyayalaya will have the power to review/ decide, dispose any matter as far Sections
126(2), 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Corresponding Sections 145(2), 146 and
147 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), even if passed by Sessions Judge/ Additional Sessions
Judge i.e. officer of Higher Judicial Service cadre and therefore, the impugned orders dated 25.3.2025
and 1.10.2024 have been passed in accordance with law and by way of jurisdiction conferred upon
Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 with respect to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The said arguments do not carry any weight, for the reason
of disparity and overlapping of the jurisdiction.

24. Under such circumstances and from the above discussion, it can fairly be concluded that:-

(i) the impugned orders dated 25.3.2025 and 1.10.2024 passed by learned Judicial
Officer, Gram Nyayalaya Dhampur, District Bijnor are liable to be quashed and set aside, the same
being inconsistent with the Family Court Act, hence, the aforesaid orders dated 1.10.2024 and
25.3.2025 are quashed and set aside. However, it shall remain open to either of the parties to take
up the matter within the framework of Family Court scheme, availing any remedy, provided under
law. As far as order dated 6.3.2019 is concerned, the same shall remain in force and till the date,
the respondent No.2 got re-married.

(ii) The cases filed before the Family Courts can be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya, to
the extent and with a rider that, all such cases, where no such order, deciding the rights of the
parties, has been passed, (say grant of interi m maintenance), and the same order is not revisable or
appealable before the Higher Court.

(iii) It is further held that, the cases pending before the Family Courts to be decided under Sections
126(2), 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Corresponding Sections 145(2), 146 and 147
of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) cannot be transferred to Gram Nyayalaya.

25. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2190
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 12198 of 2025

Ranjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Neetu Singh ...Respondent
4 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. Neetu Singh
2191
Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether a husband, having already obtained interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, is entitled to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution seeking expeditious disposal of a subsequent maintenance proceeding instituted under Section
144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
(ii) Whether a petitioner invoking equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 is entitled to relief
after suppressing material facts, including the pendency and stay of connected proceedings and the receipt of
interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
(iii) Whether the High Court, while declining relief under Article 227, is justified in imposing compensatory
costs for abuse of the process of Court and issuing consequential directions to ensure expeditious disposal of
the pending matrimonial proceedings?

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Equitable and discretionary
relief - Suppression of material facts - Effect.

HELD: Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is governed by equitable principles. A litigant who
approaches the Court by suppressing material facts, making false statements on oath, or concealing orders
having a direct bearing on the relief claimed is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the High
Court. Suppression of the fact that proceedings sought to be expedited had already been stayed by a
coordinate Bench, coupled with concealment of the order granting interim maintenance under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, disentitles the petitioner to any equitable relief. [Paras 13, 14, 17 and 32]

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 144 - Maintenance proceeding by husband
- Parallel claim under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Effect of concealment.

HELD: Where the husband had already obtained an order awarding interim maintenance and litigation
expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in pending matrimonial proceedings, and failed to
disclose the same while instituting proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 as well as in the petition under Article 227, such suppression constituted a material circumstance
disentitling him to the discretionary relief sought before the High Court. [Paras 7, 9.4, 13 and 14]

Constitution of India - Article 227 - Prayer for expeditious disposal - Proceedings stayed by
coordinate Bench - Maintainability.

HELD: Where further proceedings in the maintenance case under Section 144 BNSS, 2023 had already been
stayed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in transfer proceedings, the prayer seeking expeditious
disposal of such proceedings became infructuous and legally unsustainable. The High Court cannot direct
expeditious disposal of proceedings whose further conduct stands interdicted by a subsisting judicial order.
[Para 13]

Constitution of India - Article 227 - Abuse of process of Court - Compensatory costs.

HELD: Where the Court finds that the petition lacks bona fides and has been instituted by suppressing
material facts and pursuing parallel remedies with a view to obtain equitable relief, it is justified in dismissing
the petition with realistic and substantial compensatory costs. Award of such costs serves the dual purpose of
compensating the opposite party and discouraging frivolous and vexatious litigation amounting to abuse of the
judicial process. [Paras 18 to 32]

Constitution of India - Article 227 - Equitable jurisdiction - Clean hands doctrine - Duty of
candour and full disclosure.
2192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD: A litigant invoking the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is under a solemn
obligation to disclose all material facts having a bearing on the relief claimed. Suppression of pending
connected proceedings, subsisting interim orders or previous adjudications affecting the controversy amounts
to abuse of the process of Court. A party guilty of concealment cannot claim equitable or discretionary relief
merely because a legal remedy may otherwise be available. [Paras 13 to 18]

Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Exercise of discretion - Abuse
of process - Consequential directions.

HELD: While declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 on account of suppression of material facts,
the High Court is not precluded from issuing appropriate consequential directions for effective administration
of justice. Such directions, including expeditious disposal of pending matrimonial proceedings, are intended to
avoid multiplicity of litigation and secure an early resolution of disputes between the parties. [Paras 29 to
32]

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Pendency of matrimonial proceedings -
Expeditious disposal.

HELD: Matrimonial disputes involving interconnected proceedings should be concluded with due expedition.
Where several proceedings between the spouses are pending before the Family Court, the Court may
appropriately direct their early disposal so that the parties are not subjected to prolonged litigation and
repeated interlocutory proceedings. [Paras 30 to 32]

Petition dismissed with costs of ₹50,000/-(E-14)

Case Law Cited
K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481 - relied on; Dalip
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 - relied on; Oswal Fats and Oils
Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others, (2010) 4
SCC 728 - relied on; Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2013) 2 SCC 398 -
relied on; Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 - relied on; Arunima
Baruah v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 120 - referred to; Ramjas Foundation v.
Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38 - relied on; A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., (2007)
4 SCC 221 - relied on

List of Acts / Statutes/Books
Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Family Courts Act,
1984.

List of Keywords
Supervisory jurisdiction; Suppression of material facts; Abuse of process of Court; Clean hands doctrine;
Equitable jurisdiction; Interim maintenance; Parallel proceedings; Expeditious disposal; Compensatory costs.

Case Arising From
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of
proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of connected matrimonial
proceedings between the parties, in which an order granting interim maintenance under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had already been passed and further proceedings under Section 144 BNSS had
been stayed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Anurag Shukla, Arun Kumar Soni, Kumar Anubhav, Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra
4 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. Neetu Singh
2193
For the Respondents: Gyan Chandra, Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Vijeta Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Soni and Shri Kumar Anubhav, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae; Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband with the prayer to expedite the
proceedings of Maintenance Case No.523 of 2025, filed under Section 144 BNSS, 20231 (Order
for maintenance of wives, children and parents) titled as 'Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh', pending
before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah.

3. The brief facts arising out from the application under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 are
succinctly reproduced hereinafter. The marriage of petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was
solemnized on 18.5.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at J.P. Garden, Pachavali
Road, Etawah. At the time of marriage both the parties were unemployed and were preparing for
competitive examinations. Since both the parties were good in their academics, their families
decided to solemnize their marriage with the belief that soon they would get government
employment. Soon after the marriage, the respondent-wife secured government job in High Court
of Allahabad on the post of Additional Private Secretary, but the petitioner-husband did not get a
government job even though he has been equally good in studies, as claimed by the petitioner. The
petitioner while preparing for the competitive examinations also pursued Law and obtained LL.B.
degree, and thereafter got enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar.

3.1 It is further contended in maintenance application that after securing a job as an Additional
Private Secretary in High Court of Allahabad, the respondent-wife started quarreling and
misbehaving with the petitioner and his mother and tried every possible means to separate the
petitioner-husband from his family and launched false criminal prosecution against the petitioner
and his family members by influencing the police. The petitioner has no independent source of
income. He is an unemployed youth, and is preparing for competitive examinations. The
respondent-wife also started taunting the petitioner for being unemployed and even humiliated the
petitioner in front of her colleagues at her work place. The respondent-wife started filing false FIR
based on concocted story against the petitioner with the intention to spoil his career.

3.2 The petitioner has no source of income for survival and is maintaining himself by way of
taking loan from his friends and relatives. Presently the petitioner has no option except of filing an
application under Section 144 BNSS, 2023 for seeking maintenance from the respondent-wife. The
petitioner has also contended that he has not filed any petition before any Court for seeking
maintenance prior to filing of the present petition.

4. In support of the contentions raised in the maintenance application filed under section 144
of BNSS, 2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent-wife has spoiled
the career of the petitioner by filing two FIRs against him based on incorrect facts; (i) Case Crime
No.27 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
2194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
at P.S. Mahila Thana, Commissionerate Prayagraj, (ii) Case Crime No.043 of 2024, under Sections
406, 506 IPC, at P.S. Cantt, Commissionerate Prayagraj. The respondent-wife has also filed a
divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 registered as Marriage Case
No.2504 of 2023, tilted as 'Neetu Singh v. Ranjeet Singh', pending trial before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj. The petitioner has to travel for around 400 kilometers on each
fixed date to attend the court proceedings.

4.1 He next submitted that the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 registered as Case No.43 of 2024 before the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Etawah and the respondent-wife has not participated in the said proceedings. In fact,
the respondent-wife preferred a Transfer Application No.883 of 2024 before this Court for transfer
of the Case No.43 of 2024 pending trial before learned Family Court, Etawah. The co-ordinate
Bench of this Court stayed the aforesaid proceedings vide order dated 14.11.2024.

4.2 The petitioner has to travel thousands of kilometers in a month to attend the Court
proceedings with regard to numerous cases filed by the respondent-wife, and due to the same
reason, the petitioner has developed serious health issues like high blood pressure, hypertension,
sugar, high cholesterol, urinary problems, heart and kidney diseases.

4.3 The respondent-wife has not been appearing before the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, in the proceedings under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and since then no effective order has
been passed.

4.4 Lastly, it is submitted by way of rejoinder affidavit dated 28.11.2025 through Advocate
Shri Anurag Shukla that the present petition has been filed with a limited relief seeking expeditious
disposal of the application under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and as such no counter affidavit is
required. The petitioner has also filed an application no.7 of 2025 dated 15.12.2025 through
Advocate Shri Arun Kumar Soni along with an affidavit seeking liberty from this Court to
withdraw the present petition, which was argued by Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner.

4.5 The petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit dated 9.12.2025, wherein he
submitted that due to his sudden illness he failed to appear before this Court on 8.12.2025 and non
appearance of the petitioner was intimated to this Court by post on 7.12.2025 through the
petitioner's counsel to the Registrar General. The whatsapp message was also sent and the same
was acknowledged by the respondent's counsel.

5. Per contra, Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the
petitioner comes from a political family and is a registered Advocate with Bar Council of Uttar
Pradesh. The petitioner has started his legal practice before this Court under the juniorship of Shri
Anurag Shukla (Advocate Roll No.0127/2016). The uncle of the petitioner was the Member of 15th
Lok Sabha from Etawah constituency while his mother was a Gram Pradhan. The petitioner also
was in construction business. The petitioner is fraud, compulsive liar and a greedy man. He does
everything to get easy money. He is a healthy and sturdy man and is addicted to alcohol and bad
habits; he wants free money to live a debauched life.
4 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. Neetu Singh
2195

5.1 The petitioner has a history of making false and misleading statements before learned
Family Court and this Hon'ble Court as well. He has attempted to secure relief by suppressing and
concealing true and material facts. The petitioner has misled the Court to obtain favourable orders
while continuing to take benefit from the respondent wife's income. Despite being an Advocate, the
petitioner has portrayed himself as a helpless and pitiable person in order to gain undue sympathy
and advantage in the proceedings.

5.2 On 10.11.2020, the petitioner fraudulently, by taking the respondent-wife in confidence on
false promise to purchase a plot of land, took a personal loan of Rs.11,50,000/- from the
respondent's salary account in SBI Bank having branch at High Court at Lucknow- a Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petitioner again on 6.10.2022, took personal loan of
Rs.13,56,000/- to be repaid in six years from the respondent's salary account, in Jhalwa Branch of
SBI, at Prayagraj. The respondent-wife has been paying monthly EMI of Rs.26,020/- since then,
and will pay till October, 2028. The said loan was taken under the guise of purchasing a plot
whereas the petitioner fraudulently kept transferring the loan amount into his personal account
through UPI and exhausted all the loan amount, total amounting to Rs.13,56,000/-, on alcoholic
drinks and leading luxurious life, and other nefarious activities.

5.3 It is next submitted that all the banking details, password, ATM/Debit Card of the
respondent-wife were with the petitioner-husband, who without her consent and knowledge made
unauthorized withdrawals and spent the entire money on leading luxurious life and consuming
alcoholic drinks.

5.4 As per respondent-wife, when she confronted the petitioner regarding the account
statement, and luxurious spending, initially he avoided the respondent and thereafter started
perpetuating cruelty. The loan was taken under the guise of taking a plot of land and when she
insisted for a visit to the plot, the petitioner became aggressive and started causing mental and
physical cruelty upon the respondent. The petitioner left the respondent-wife at her maternal home
and stopped contacting her. After some days, the respondent-wife visited her rented home in
Kalindipuram, Prayagraj and came to know that her husband (petitioner) had run away with all the
household articles, jewelries and her Vitara Brezza car bearing registration no.UP-70-EW-3661,
purchased by the respondent-wife from her own funds.

5.5 She next submitted that when the respondent-wife asked the petitioner to return her car,
given in the marriage, he shamelessly demanded Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent. Aggrieved by
the same, the respondent lodged an FIR against the petitioner on 07.03.2024 having Case Crime
No.0043 of 2024, under Sections 406, 506 IPC, at P.S. Cantt, Prayagraj. Against the aforesaid FIR,
the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4930 of 2024 with the prayer to quash the
FIR and the petition was dismissed with the observation that the FIR prima facie disclose
commission of cognizable offense and the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained. Even
after lodging an FIR, the petitioner refused to return the car, and aggrieved by the same, the
respondent-wife was further forced to file Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14344 of 2024 with the
prayer to direct to the police to recover the vehicle registered in her name and handover to her. The
same was dismissed as 'not pressed' with the understanding that the matter would be settled out of
the Court in mediation proceedings.
2196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5.6 Aggrieved by the constant physical and metal abuse by the petitioner, the respondent- wife
lodged an FIR on 01.04.2023 having Case Crime No.0027 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504,
506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Mahila Thana, Prayagraj. Thereafter, being
aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner has filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6041 of
2023 before this Court with the prayer to quash the FIR which was dismissed for want of
prosecution vide order dated 06.08.2024, and thereafter two FIRs have also been lodged against the
petitioner-husband.

5.7 Aggrieved by the ill and reprehensible behaviour of the petitioner, leading to the mental
and physical torture, the respondent-wife, filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, which is pending
for final adjudication. The respondent-wife has gone through emotional dysregulation and
cognitive disturbances and a situation came where it became impossible to live with the petitionerhusband, and therefore, the respondent-wife filed the aforesaid divorce petition.

5.8 In the divorce petition, on 20.5.2025, the petitioner filed an application under section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance based on concocted and false averments. The
learned Family Court vide order dated 15.9.2025 allowed the application under section 24 of the
HMA with the direction to the respondent-wife to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as an interim
maintenance and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Against the order dated 15.9.2025, the
respondent-wife filed a review application which is pending for adjudication before the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj.

5.9 She next submitted that the respondent-wife challenged the proceedings filed under section
144 of BNSS, 2023 pending adjudication before the learned Family Court, Etawah, before this
Court by way of a Transfer Application (Criminal) No.517 of 2025, this Court vide order dated
3.11.2025 stayed the further proceedings arising out of Maintenance Case No.523 of 2025 filed
under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 pending before the learned Family Court, Etawah.

5.10 The conduct of the petitioner clearly reflects a deliberate attempt by initiating multiple
frivolous proceedings solely to delay the lawful adjudication of the matter. The petitioner despite
being capable of earning has been intentionally suppressing material facts and falsely portraying
himself as an unemployed person only to seek undue advantage, and has engaged the respondentwife in multiple litigation to frustrate her.

5.11 It's next emphatically submitted that the respondent was subjected to continuous physical
and mental cruelty at the hands of the petitioner-husband, which, according to her, led to severe
emotional distress and depression. It has further been alleged that the petitioner is habitual drunkard
and had, without lawful justification, procured substantial personal loans from the salary account of
the respondent-wife, and that the withdrawn amounts were misused for gambling, drinking and
other improvident activities.

5.12 Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-wife concluded her submission by
stating that a compensatory cost be imposed on the petitioner-husband, and a more realistic and
pro-active approach is needed for Courts to deal with such matters. The compensatory cost may act
4 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. Neetu Singh
2197
deterrent to vexatious or luxury litigation born out of false pretenses, ego, greed, or resorted to as a
buying-time tactics. In this context, she placed reliance upon the observation made by the Supreme
Court in Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta, Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, and Sanjeev
Kumar Jain v. Raghuvir Saran Charitable Trust.

6. In brief, few facts and the relevant contents of the orders passed during the hearing of the
petition would help to reach to a logical conclusion. The present petition was filed before this Court
on 25.09.2025 and was firstly listed on 04.11.2025. On the first date, none was present on behalf of
the petitioner neither any adjournment slip was moved on his behalf. This Court directed both the
parties to appear in person and accordingly the Registry was directed to communicate a copy of the
order to Shri Kumar Anubhav, learned counsel for the petitioner on his registered mobile number to
ensure the presence of the petitioner in person on the next date of hearing. In compliance thereof a
copy of the order dated 4.11.2025 was communicated to Shri Kumar Anubhav on his registered
mobile no.6387317341.

6.1 On 11.11.2025, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was
adjourned to 21.11.2025, and when the matter was taken up on 21.11.2025, again none appeared on
behalf of the petitioner while the respondent's counsel was present, and on his request the case was
adjourned to 25.11.2025. On 25.11.2025, the respondent-wife filed counter affidavit while time
was granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit and accordingly, rejoinder affidavit was filed
on 28.11.2025.

6.2 On 03.12.2025 after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court called for the
certified copy of the record from learned District Judge, Etawah regarding all pending cases
between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife was also directed to furnish
details regarding pending cases between the parties before the Allahabad District Court and High
Court along with orders and the learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to prepare with
the case.

6.3 On 8.12.2025, the matter was called twice. None appeared on behalf of petitioner while the
learned counsel for the respondent was present. The matter was scheduled to be taken up at 10:30
a.m. and was taken up at 12:40 p.m. still neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared on his behalf.
In compliance with the order dated 3.12.2025, the respondent's learned counsel furnished details of
the litigation pending between the parties before the various Courts. Learned counsel for the
respondent informed the Court that the learned counsel for the petitioner was communicated on two
separate occasions and petitioner's learned counsel cited his unavailability and thereafter finally
deliberately refused to accept the counter affidavit. In the interest of justice, this Court had granted
last and final opportunity to the petitioner to advance submissions personally or through duly
engaged counsel and the copy of order was duly communicated to the petitioner on his registered
mobile number through Registrar (Compliance).

6.4 On 10.12.2025, Shri Arun Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and
sought time to go through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-wife and to file
rejoinder affidavit, accordingly one week's time was further accorded to the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the respondent was heard at length and she was
2198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
directed to furnish the copy of petition to Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Advocate, who may
assist the Court on behalf of the petitioner, on the next date of hearing if the petitioner's counsel
fails to appear before the Court. This alternative arrangement was made because the petitioner was
frequently replacing the advocates, and the Court was facing difficulty to proceed with the matter.

6.5 On 17.12.2025, Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Arun Kumar
Soni, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and submitted that an application for withdrawal
of the case is pending before the Registry waiting clearance, therefore, either the case may be
dismissed as withdrawn or the Court may wait till the time the withdrawal application is cleared by
the Registry. Upon the query of this Court regarding the possibility of amicable settlement, if any,
may be arrived between the parties, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is
ready and willing to seek mutual divorce. The Court further queried regarding the terms and
conditions of the mutual divorce on which the learned Senior Counsel submitted that he had no
instruction in this regard and requested a discharge from this case and left the Court. Thereafter,
this Court accordingly, directed Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Advocate to assist the Court as an
Amicus-Curiae.

7. On 17.12.2025, Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Amicus-Curiae filed written submission,
and the same has been taken on record. She contended that the petitioner is already getting
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and also received one time amount of Rs.10,000/- for
litigation expenses. The maintenance was awarded pursuant to an application dated 20.05.2025
filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the divorce proceedings
initiated by the respondent-wife, pending trial before the learned Family Court, Prayagraj. The
petitioner has not disclosed the details of the application dated 20.05.2025, filed under section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and an order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Family Judge,
Prayagraj directing the respondent-wife to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and
Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses, in an application filed under Section 144 BNSS, 2023 before
learned Family Judge at Etawah. Learned Amicus-Curiae has drawn the attention of the Court to
paragraph no.16 of the Maintenance Application No.523 of 2025, filed under 144 BNSS, 2023
wherein the petitioner has stated that no case with regard to maintenance is pending in any Court
and sworn affidavit to this effect.

7.1 The learned Amicus-Curiae further stated that even if the wife is employed, the husband
cannot make himself wholly dependent on his wife's income through a device under Section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner has not filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in
Rajnesh v. Neha and another5. She next submitted that the petitioner has sworn false affidavit
before this court and before the learned Judge, Family Court both at Prayagraj and Etawah. In
support of the submissions, learned Amicus-Curiae has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (supra); a judgment passed by Bombay
High Court in Smt. Kanchan w/o Kamlendra Sawarkar v. Kamlendra; a judgment passed by
Madhya Pradesh in Yashpal Singh Thakur v. Smt. Anjana Rajput; and a judgment passed by High
Court of Kerala in the case of Nivya v. Shivaprasad to substantiate that the husband is disentitled to
claim maintenance under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and there was no reason for the learned
Family Judge, Etawah to entertain such a frivolous application.
4 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. Neetu Singh
2199

7.2 Learned Amicus-Curiae further stated that petitioner is in habit of misleading Courts by
placing incorrect facts and swearing false affidavits. This become grave when the petitioner himself
claims to be a practicing Advocate and has been appearing in this Court regularly under the
guidance of Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel. Contesting matrimonial litigation is one thing,
and filing false and frivolous petitions along with false affidavits is another matter of grave
concern. The conduct of the petitioner shall be taken seriously. On one hand, the respondent-wife is
paying monthly installment of Rs.26,020/- against the loan spent by the petitioner-husband for
consuming alcohol and leading luxurious life. On the other hand, the petitioner has moved two
separate maintenance applications; (i) under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and (ii) section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 accompanied with false affidavits. Further, the petitioner is getting a
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month by misleading the learned Family Court and received one
time amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

7.3 She next submitted that it can very well be understood that petitioner is a crook and lair,
and leading a debauched life. The Court may proceed further with perjury proceedings against the
petitioner-husband.

8. This Court has examined and given a thoughtful consideration of the records; (i) summoned
from the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah where an application under
section 144 BNNS, 2023 was filed by the petitioner, (ii) the Matrimonial Case No.2504 of 2023,
pending adjudication before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj and proceedings
initiated before learned Family Judge on the petitioner's application under section 24 of the HMA,
1955, (iii) the affidavits sworn by the petitioner, (iv) order dated 15.9.2025 passed in Application
under section 24 of HMA, 1955 by learned Family Judge, Prayagraj, and the findings recorded by
the learned Judge in the last portion of para-4 of internal page-6 of the order, (v) the account
statements of respondent-wife with respect to the loan amount, (vi) contents of FIR No.0027 of
2023, under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at
P.S. Mahila Thana, Prayagraj, (vii) FIR No.0043/2024, under sections 406, 506 IPC registered at
P.S. Cantt. Prayagraj, (viii) orders dated 18.03.2024, 19.04.2023 & 06.08.2024 passed by Division
Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6041 of 2023, titled as Ranjeet Singh v.
State of U.P. and 3 others, (ix) order dated 24.10.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Matters Under Article 227 No.12641 of 2024 titled as Neetu Singh v. Ranjeet Singh, (x) order
dated 02.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4930 of 2024, titled as Ranjeet Singh
v. State of U.P. and 3 others, (xi) order dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024, 22.10.2024 and 03.03.2025
passed by the Division Bench in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14344 of 2024 titled as Smt.
Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 others, (xii) order dated 14.11.2024 passed in Transfer
Application (Civil) No.883 of 2024, titled as Smt. Neetu Singh v. Ranjeet Singh, (xiii) order dated
03.11.2025 passed in Transfer Application (Criminal) No.517 of 2025 titled as Neetu Singh v. State
of U.P. and 2 others, and (xiv) affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner-husband
before the learned Family Court, Prayagraj.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner's marriage was solemnized with respondent on 18.5.2019 in
accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage could not succeed and both the parties
entered into litigation. The record further suggests that the respondent-wife is a resident of
2200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prayagraj and also got job in this Court as Additional Private Secretary. The respondent-wife got
transferred to Lucknow Bench of this Court for the convenience of the petitioner-husband and
remained posted there for approximately 3 years. Subsequently, when the dispute arose, the
respondent-wife got transferred to Prayagraj, and started living at a rented accommodation.

9.1 The record further suggests that the respondent-wife initially has taken a personal loan of
Rs.11,50,000/- on her salary account from SBI Bank branch, situated at Lucknow Bench of this
Court. The loan was subsequently paid by the respondent-wife. Thereafter, the respondent-wife at
the persistent request of her husband to save the matrimonial life again taken a personal loan of
Rs.13,56,000/- on 6.10.2022, and since then she is paying regular monthly installments of
Rs.26,020/- from her salary account.

9.2 The salary account statement of respondent-wife further reflects that the petitionerhusband transferred the entire loan amount from respondent-wife's account no.38057767739 at SBI
Branch High Court to his account no.3444187141 at Central Bank of India and second Account
no.3499626709 through UPI. The complete details have not been provided by the petitioner.

9.3 The Income Tax Return (ITR) of the petitioner-husband for the Assessment Year 20232024 shows that total income of the petitioner was Rs.4,70,540/-, and the petitioner has given a
justification that the petitioner was a civil contractor before joining the legal profession in the year
2025, and therefore, filed ITR for the year 2023-2024. The petitioner has two Bank Accounts at
State Bank of India, bearing Account No.3499626709 and 3948116745, as disclosed in affidavit of
assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has neither annexed the last three years
bank account statement nor furnished the further details like name of the bank, branch and account
number etc. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner has concealed the material source of
income from the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj.

9.4 It is also admitted that besides the criminal cases filed by the respondent-wife against the
petitioner, the writ petitions, and transfer petitions were filed by both the parties. A divorce petition
registered as Matrimonial Case No.2504 of 2023 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was
filed by the respondent-wife on 22.12.2023, and since then the same is pending consideration
before the learned Judge Family Court, Prayagraj. The petitioner-husband had moved an
application dated 20.05.2025 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking maintenance,
which was allowed vide order dated 15.9.2025 with the direction to the respondent-wife to pay
Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

9.5 The respondent-wife preferred a petition under Article 227 No.12641 of 2024 seeking a
direction to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court to decide the Matrimonial Suit No.2504 of
2023 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 within a fixed time frame. The coordinate Bench of this Court placing reliance upon Section 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
disposed of the petition with the observation that the Act of 1955 itself provides for deciding the
petition within fixed period of time, therefore, there is no need for issuing a separate direction to
the learned Family Court. The Family Court was directed to proceed in accordance with Section
21-B of the Act, 1955. Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been reproduced:
4 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. Neetu Singh
2201

"21B. Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the Act.-(1) The
trial of a petition under this Act shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of
justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion unless the court
finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be
recorded.