# Rohit Yadav @ Ravi & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 517
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 731 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-yadav-ravi-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50369
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
397/401-
Revision - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2,
3, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 -
Object and purpose - to grant a right to
aggrieved person, a woman of residence
in shared households - The wife is entitled
to claim a right to residence in a share
households belonging to relatives of her
husband. (Para - 19)

Opposite Party No. 2 filed a petition against
revisionists (relatives of her late husband) -
seeking protection, right to reside in share
households, monetary relief, residence order,
and compensation orders - harassed by her
relatives - subjected to rape by her brothersin-law - forced to leave her matrimonial home
- property dispute between revisionists and
respondent no. 2 - in-laws of respondent no.
2 - court passed an ex-parte judgment
against revisionists - failed to file any written
statements - no recall against ex-parte order
- court proceed with ex-parte evidence -
decided case against revisionists - no specific
averments

-

regarding
maintenance
quantum or inability to pay amount to
respondent no. 2. (Para - 4,20 )

HELD:-No
error
found
in
maintenance
quantification awarded by Nyayadhikari and
affirmed by Appellate Court. Impugned order
can be modified to limit relief to revisionists 1 to
3, and exempt them from complying with order
for maintenance and accommodation in shared
households.
Revision
partially
allowed
for
opposite party 4 and 5 but order remains valid
for revisionists 1 to 3. No illegality, irregularity,
or
proprietary
issues
in
the
challenged
judgments. (Para -20,21)

Revision
partly
allowed
with
modifications. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Rohit Yadav @ Ravi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
517

"20. ...In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab
AIR 1965 SC 444. Subba Rao, J., speaking
for the majority, opined thus:-

"The Act is a milestone in the progress of
the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of
penology. It is the result of the recognition of the
doctrine that the object of criminal law is more
to reform the individual offender than to punish
him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes
offenders below 21 years of age and those
above that age, and offenders who are guilty of
having committed an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life and those who
are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case
of offenders who are above the age of 21 years
absolute discretion is given to the court to
release them after admonition or on probation
of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid
down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in
the case of offenders below the age of 21 years
an injunction is issued to the court not to
sentence them to imprisonment unless it is
satisfied
that
having
regard
to
the
circumstances of the case; including the nature
of the offence and the character of the
offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."

15. This is a case of the year 1996 and
more than 26 years have passed. The incident
took place way back in the year 1996. The
accused-revisionist has suffered in matter for
past three decades and there is no other pre or
post criminal antecedent of the accused
revisionist. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to send the revisionist in jail.

16. So far as the conviction part is
concerned, this Court does not find any
illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order
passed by the courts below but keeping in view
the discussion made above, the sentence
inflicted on the accused-revisionist requires
modification.

17. The revision is partly allowed with
following modifications:-

17.1. The conviction of the accusedrevisionist by courts below is upheld. The
sentence of revisionist-accused is modified to
the tune that he is provided benefit of Section 4
of the UP Probation of Offenders Act and is
released on probation on the condition that he
will keep peace and good conduct for one year
from today and shall file two sureties to the tune
of Rs.30,000/- each along with his personal
bond before the court below and also an
undertaking to the effect that he shall maintain
peace and good behaviour during the period of
one year from today. In case of breach of any of
the conditions mentioned above, the revisionist
will be subjected to undergo the sentence as
directed by the courts below. The bonds
aforesaid will be filed by the revisionist-accused
within one month from today, before the
District Probation Officer, Balrampur, UP under
the intimation to the concerned court.

18. A certified copy of the order be also
sent to the court concerned and District
Probation
Officer,
Balrampur,
UP
for
compliance.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 517
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 731 of 2023

Rohit Yadav @ Ravi & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri
Yogesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
Sri
Noor
Muhammad

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Kamlesh Singh Jadaun

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
397/401-
Revision - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2,
3, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 -
Object and purpose - to grant a right to
aggrieved person, a woman of residence
in shared households - The wife is entitled
to claim a right to residence in a share
households belonging to relatives of her
husband. (Para - 19)

Opposite Party No. 2 filed a petition against
revisionists (relatives of her late husband) -
seeking protection, right to reside in share
households, monetary relief, residence order,
and compensation orders - harassed by her
relatives - subjected to rape by her brothersin-law - forced to leave her matrimonial home
- property dispute between revisionists and
respondent no. 2 - in-laws of respondent no.
2 - court passed an ex-parte judgment
against revisionists - failed to file any written
statements - no recall against ex-parte order
- court proceed with ex-parte evidence -
decided case against revisionists - no specific
averments

-

regarding
maintenance
quantum or inability to pay amount to
respondent no. 2. (Para - 4,20 )

HELD:-No
error
found
in
maintenance
quantification awarded by Nyayadhikari and
affirmed by Appellate Court. Impugned order
can be modified to limit relief to revisionists 1 to
3, and exempt them from complying with order
for maintenance and accommodation in shared
households.
Revision
partially
allowed
for
opposite party 4 and 5 but order remains valid
for revisionists 1 to 3. No illegality, irregularity,
or
proprietary
issues
in
the
challenged
judgments. (Para -20,21)

Revision
partly
allowed
with
modifications. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Indra Sharma Vs V.K.V. Sharma, AIR 2014 SC
309

2. Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja, AIR
2020 SC 2483

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. Present criminal revision has been
preferred against order dated 8.1.2022
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad, in Crl.
Appeal No. 51 of 2021, (Rohit Yadav @
Ravi Vs. Smt. Deepika Yadav) as well as
order
dated
1.11.2021
passed
by
Nyayadhikari (Judicial Officer), Rural
Court Tundla, District Firozabad, in Case
No.
367
of
2020,
under
Sections
12/14/15/17/18/19/20/21/22 Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, P.S.
Tundla,
District
Firozabad.
By
the
impugned order dated 1.11.2021, learned
Nyayadhikari/Judicial Magistrate allowed
the petition under aforesaid sections filed
by petitioner Smt. Deepika Yadav, ex-parte
against present revisionists, who were
respondent in Case No. 637 of 2020 before
court of Nyayadhikari and directed them to
pay Rs. 7,000/- as monetory compensation
towards fooding, clothing, medical and
daily needs of opposite party and her two
minor daughters Ishanika and Joshika, aged
around 7 years and 3 years respectively,
from the time of filing of petition in the
year 2020.

3. Learned court below also directed
the respondents/revisionists to stay away
from dispossessing the petitioners/opposite
7 All. Rohit Yadav @ Ravi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
519
party from shared households where she
was residing in a room and were also
directed to refrain from harassing the
petitioner/opposite party physically or
mentally on account of any dispute over
property of her late husband Sapan Yadav.

4. Factual matrix of the case which are
essential for disposal of present criminal
revision is that the Opposite Party No. 2
filed a petition before Nyayadhikari under
various provisions of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act against the
revisionists who are relatives of her late
husband, with prayer for issuing necessary
orders admissible under provisions of Act
like protection order under Section 18,
Right to Reside in the share households
under Section 17, Monetory relief under
Section 20, residence order under Section
19, Compensation order under Section 22
of the Act. In the petition petitioner had
stated that her marriage with Sapan Singh
was solemnized on 25.12.2010 and from
their wedlock two female child born.
Unfortunately
her
husband
died
on
18.9.2019. After death of her husband,
respondents/revisionists who are mother-inlaw, brother-in-law (dewar), sister-in-law
(devrani),
sister-in-law
(nanand)
and
brother-in-law (nandoi) started harassing
her. The relatives of her husband are
persons of bad character. She has not been
in a position to maintain herself. The
respondents/revisionists started harassing
her both physically and mentally in various
ways. She was subjected to rape by
respondent nos. 1 (Rohit) and 5 (Vipul
Yadav), her brothers-in-law, with collusion
of women of shared households and
ultimately she was forced to leave her
matrimonial home and consequently she
was compelled to take shelter in her
parental home situated at Anand Nagar,
Tundla, Distrcit Firozabad. She filed
present petition for above stated reliefs on
11.11.2020 before learned magistrate.

5. The appellants/respondents after
service of notice appeared before the trial
Court, but not filed objections/W.S.. On
6.9.2021,
appellants/respondents
filed
adjournment before lower Court and
learned lower Court has allowed the
adjournment
and
fix
07.09.2021
for
W.S./objection.
On
07.09.2021,
appellants/respondents
again
filed
the
adjournment and the same was rejected by
the lower Court and proceeded the case exparte against the appellants/respondents.

6. During the trial the applicant
Deepika Yadav examined herself as PW-1.
After hearing the arguments, learned
Magistrate has passed impugned order by
allowing the petition against appellants.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the various
protection
order
passed
by
learned
Magistrate, present revisionist filed a Crl.
Appeal No. 51 of 2019 before Court of
Session, Firozabad on ground that the trial
court has failed to appreciate facts and law
placed before it. The order passed by
learned magistrate is highly illegal and
same has not been passed on correct
appreciation of facts and law. Learned Trial
Judge has failed to observe the aspect of
income of the petitioner/opposite party no.
2 and has not given any opportunity of
hearing to the appellants/revisionists and
passed impugned order arbitrarily and on
these grounds they claimed that their
appeal may kindly be allowed and order
passed by trial court may be set aside. The
appellants/revisionists
committed
no
domestic violence against the respondent
no. 2. The petitioner/opposite party no. 2
failed to prove any case of domestic
violence made against appellants, therefore,
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the trial court has committed error in
granting
relief
of
maintenance
and
residence
order
in
favour
of
petitioner/opposite
party
no.
2.
Appellants/revisionists were not given any
opportunity of hearing and for filing any
written statements in petition.

8. Learned first appellate court after
hearing arguments of both sides concluded
that learned lower court was justified to
proceed
the
case
ex-parte
against
appellants/revisionists
as
the
appellants/revisionists
had
filed
an
adjournment on 9.4.2021 and opposite
party nos. 4 and 5 had filed discharge
application 16-A. Learned court below vide
order
dated
26.8.2021
dismissed
application 16-A and fixed 6.9.2021 for
filing the written statement. On 6.9.2021
opposite parties have filed adjournment
which was allowed by the learned lower
court with cost. On the next date i.e.
7.9.2021, opposite party had again filed the
adjournment and same was rejected by
learned lower court holding that opposite
parties are delaying the process and
proceeded
the
case
ex-parte
against
opposite parties, therefore, grounds taken
by appellants regarding knowledge of the
case are false and fabricated because it is
apparent from perusal of record of lower
court that they appeared before lower court
and moved the adjournments. On 6.9.2021
learned
lower
court
has
given
last
opportunity to opposite parties to file
written statement but on the next date they
failed to file any written statements and
rather they moved adjournment again
before court below. It appears from conduct
of opposite party that they tried to delay the
proceedings of the case deliberately while
the
court
below
had
given
proper
opportunity to opposite parties for filing
objection/written
statement.
It
is
noteworthy that the appellants had not filed
any appeal against ex-parte order while
they could have filed the appeal against the
said
ex-parte
order
dated
7.9.2021.
Therefore, it is clear that learned court
below was justified to proceed the case exparte against opposite parties/appellants.
Learned court below also inferred on the
basis of evidence on record that learned
trial
court
has
rightly
passed
the
maintenance order in favour of the
petitioner. Court below also concluded that
the appeal is liable to be dismissed and
impugned
order
passed
by
learned
magistrate deserves to be affirmed.

9. Feeling aggrieved by impugned orders
passed by court below, revisionists who are
respondents before trial court, have filed
present criminal revision on grounds that
after death of husband of respondent no. 2,
all the property which was in the name of
her husband was given to her and she took
all the articles and ornaments and started
living with her children at her parental
house. There is dispute between revisionist
and respondent no. 2 regarding the property
for which several round of mediation was
carried out. The respondent no. 2 even
lodged a false F.I.R. against revisionist on
21.8.2020 registered as Case Crime No.
181 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 342,
323, 504, 506 IPC, .P.S. South, District
Firozabad in which Section 164 IPC was
further added on the basis of statement of
respondent no. 2 during investigation. The
revisionist challenged the charge sheet filed
in said criminal case by police after
investigation
before
this
Court
in
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 16933 of
2022, in which interim relief was granted to
revisionist vide order dated 20.7.2022 to
the effect that till the next date of listing, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants in said criminal case. The said
7 All. Rohit Yadav @ Ravi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
521
application was filed by the revisionist
Rohit Yadav, dewar of respondent no. 2,
Smt. Arti Yadav, sister-in-law (devrani) of
respondent no. 2 and Smt. Madhubala
(mother-in-law of respondent no. 2).
Respondents being relatives of husband of
respondent
no.
2
cannot
be
held
accountable for providing maintenance.
The respondent no. 2 has already taken the
share/property, all the insurance money and
bank deposits lying in the name of her late
husband and she has filed present case only
to harass the revisionists but this facts were
overlooked by learned court below. The
impugned orders are liable to be set aside
and revision should be allowed in the
interest of justice.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
stated grounds mentioned in criminal
revision in support of his arguments and
prayed for allowing present revision and to
discharge the revisionists from any liability
with which they are saddled by orders of
court below in respect of respondent no. 2.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents and learned A.G.A. submitted
that courts below have committed no
irregularity, illegality or perversity while
passing impugned order which is based on
material on record and the impugned order
passed by court of first instance towards
maintenance of the respondent and her
minor daughters is very reasonable and
affordable
by
the
revisionists.
The
impugned
order
passed
by
learned
Nyayadhikari/Magistrate is preceded by
proper appreciation of facts and law placed
before it. Trial court has rightly held that
original petitioner/respondent no. 2 is
living separately due to being subjected to
domestic
violence
and
in hands
of
respondents/revisionists and she is unable
to maintain herself as well as her minor
daughters.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 2 also contended that the
present revisionists have neglected the
respondent no. 2 totally and looking to this
aspect of the matter trial court has granted
the maintenance to the respondent no. 2.
Impugned orders are just and proper and do
not deserve any interference in present
revision as that will add to plight of
revisionists who are victim of domestic
violence. He prayed for dismissing the
present revision.

12. Object and reason clause of
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (Act No. 43 of 2005
came into force on 26.10.2006) provides
that " an act to provide for more effective
protection
of
the
rights
of
women
guaranteed under the Constitution who are
victims of violence of any kind occurring
within the family and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto."

13. In Section 2 which is definition
clause, following expressions are defined
as under:-

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

(f)
"domestic
relationship"
has
means
a
relationship
between
two
persons who live or have, at any point of
time,
lived
together
in
a
shared
household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a
relationship in the nature of marriage,
adoption or are family members living
together as a joint family.

(q) "respondent" means any adult
male person who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the aggrieved
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
person and against whom the aggrieved
person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or
female living in a relationship in the nature
of a marriage may also file a complaint
against a relative of the husband or the
male partner.

(s) "shared household" means a
household where the person aggrieved lives
or at any stage has lived in a domestic
relationship either singly or along with the
respondent and includes such a household
whether owned or tenanted either jointly by
the aggrieved person and the respondent,
or owned or tenanted by either of them in
respect of which either the aggrieved
person of the respondent or both jointly or
singly have any right, title, interest or
equity and includes such a household
which may belong to the joint family of
which the respondent is a member,
irrespective of whether the respondent or
the aggrieved person has any right, title or
interest in the shared household."

14. The domestic violence is defined
under Section 3 of the Act which incudes
physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse,
emotional abuse and economic abuse on
aggrieved by respondents.

15. Section 20 provides for monitory
reliefs which is reproduced as under:-

"Monetary reliefs.-

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

(a) the loss of earnings;

(b) the medical expenses;

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

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

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

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

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

(6) Upon the failure on the part of the
respondent to make payment in terms of the
order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate
may direct the employer or a debtor of the
respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved
person or to deposit with the court a
portion of the wages or salaries or debt due
to or accrued to the credit of the
respondent, which amount may be adjusted
towards the monetary relief payable by the
respondent."

16. Section 23 empowers the
magistrate to grant interim and ex-parte
7 All. Rohit Yadav @ Ravi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
523
orders on the basis of affidavit in such
form, as may be prescribed, of the
aggrieved person under Sections 18, 19, 20,
21 or as the case may be, Section 22
against
the
respondents.
Section
28
provides that same as otherwise provided in
this Act, all proceedings under Section 12,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences
under Section 31 shall be governed by the
provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973, however, subsection (2) clarifies that nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent the court from
laying down its own priviso for disposal of
an application under Section 12 or under
sub-section (2) of Section 23.

17. The revisionist has not stated in
revision memo that they are not financially
capable
to
provide
for
maintenance
awarded by learned magistrate instead they
have raised some technical objections
against impugned orders passed by court
below, for providing maintenance and
residence order in favour of present
respondent no. 2. They were given ample
opportunity by the court of first instance to
file written statements and participate in
hearing of the case before court below but
have failed to ever file written statement
against averment made in petition filed by
the petitioner, who is respondent no. 2,
presently. They had obtained several
adjournments for filing written statements
and participate in process of hearing of the
case but even after being aware of the case
and hearing before court below, they did
not try to defend themselves and court had
to proceed ex-parte against them and
decide the case ex-parte against present
revisionists who were respondents before
court of first instance.

18. The respondent no. 2 has stated in
her original application before court of first
instance seeking various sort of protection
order
in
respect
of
matters
under
controversy and that respondent nos. 1 to 3
are resident of 1/682, Suhagnagar, District
Firozabad, who are her brother-in-law,
sister-in-law
and
mother-in-law.
Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are her sister-inlaw (nanand) and brother-in-law (nandoi)
who reside in Vipulkhand. She was also
residing in the same house which belongs
to respondent nos. 1 and 2, after her
marriage with her husband and even
thereafter due to taking view of harassment
and torture meted out to her by opposite
parties, she was compelled to leave her
matrimonial home on 12.7.2020 and shifted
to the place of her parents along with her
minor daughters. Opposite party nos. 1 and
2 who are her brother-in-law (dewar) and
mother-in-law who have ancestral property
at village Chamraula, Tehsil Atmadpur,
District Agra, Village Itayli, Tehsil- Bah,
District Agra, Village Alampur Jarkhi,
District
Firozabad,
Village
Pachawan,
District Firozabad, Mauza Ushayni, Tehsil
Tundla, District Firozabad. One house at
Firozabad along with six shops and a
number of immovable property in city
Firozabad from which they earn sufficient
income through rents. They do not pay any
money for maintenance of the applicant
and her minor children. In report submitted
by D.P.O., the factum of allegation of
domestic violence made in the complaint
filed by the present respondent no. 2 was
found to have established. Courts below
have given a finding that applicant (Smt.
Deepika Yadav) is unable to maintain
herself along with her children. She has
supported the version of complaint by way
of her evidence before the court which has
been filed in the form of affidavit evidence
and same was un-controverted as opposite
parties had failed to participate in the
process of hearing. In Indra Sharma Vs.
V.K.V. Sharma, AIR 2014 SC 309, Hon'ble
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Apex Court held that Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act has been
enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for
protection of women from being victims of
Domestic Violence Act and to prevent
occurrence of domestic violence in the
society. The act has been enacted also to
provide an effective protection of the rights
of women who are victims of
 violence on any kind, occurring within the
family.

19. In Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs.
Sneha Ahuja, AIR 2020 SC 2483, Hon'ble
Apex Court held that S.R. Batra and Anr.
Vs. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, has
not correctly interpreted the provisions of
Section 2(s) of Domestic Violence Act and
does not lay down correct law, where the
court held that wife is only entitled to claim
a right to residence, share households
would only mean the house belonging to or
taken on rent by the husband, or the house
which belongs to joint family of which
husband is a member. Hon'ble Apex Court
further held in Satish Chandra Ahuja's case
(supra) that definition of share household
as noticed in section 2(s) does not indicate
that a share household shall be one which
belongs to or taken on rent by the husband.
We
have
noticed
the
definition
of
"respondent" under the Act. Respondent in
a proceedings under the Domestic Violence
Act can be any relative of the husband. In
event the shared households belongs to any
relative of the husband with whom in a
domestic relationship, the women has lived,
the conditions mentioned in sub-section
2(s) are satisfied and the said house will
become a shared household and from
provisions of Section 2(s) it is clear that for
a shared houshold there is no such
requirement that the house may be owned
singly or jointly by the husband or taken on
rent by the husband. The object and
purpose of the Act was to grant a right to
aggrieved person, a woman of residence in
shared
households.
The
interpretation
which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra's
Case (supra), if accepted, shall clearly
frustrate the object and purpose of the Act.
The wife is entitled to claim a right to
residence in a share households belonging
to relatives of her husband.

20. In present case, the revisionists
have not taken a stand that they are unable
to pay the amount of maintenance awarded
by the court of first instance against them
which is payable to respondent no. 2 for
maintenance of herself and her two minor
daughters. The main thrust of contention
raised on behalf of revisionists is that there
is property dispute between the revisionists
and respondent no. 2 as revisionists are inlaws of respondent no. 2 and the impugned
order passed by court below and affirmed
by first appellate court is ex-parte. Courts
below have properly addressed the issue
that why the court had to pass ex-parte
judgment against the revisionists as even
after
appearance
in
the
court,
the
revisionists failed to file any written
statement. They took several adjournments
for
filing
written
statements
and
subsequently absented themselves and even
after passing of order with effect that case
will be heard ex-parte against them, they
did not file any application for recall of exparte order dated 7.9.2021, therefore, the
court was left with no option but to proceed
to receive ex-parte evidence and decide the
case ex-parte against present revisionists.
Revisionists have not made any specific
averments
regarding
quantum
of
maintenance as ordered by court below or
inability to pay the amount of maintenance
to respondent no. 2, therefore, I find no
factual
or
legal
error
regarding
quantification of amount of maintenance
7 All. Govind @ Arvind & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
525
awarded by learned Nyayadhikari and
affirmed by Appellate Court. However, this
fact cannot be lost sight that revisionist no.
4 and 5, who are impleaded as opposite
party no. 4 and 5 before court below, are
married sisters-in-law (nanand and nandoi)
of the complainant/respondent no. 2. They
admittedly reside at some other place and
their address have been given by the
complainant
herself
in
Vipulkhand,
Lucknow as the revisionist nos. 1 to 3 as
well as respondent no. 2 are presently
residing in district Firozabad, therefore, it
cannot be said that revisionist nos. 4 and 5
were in domestic relationship with the
complainant/respondent no. 2, particularly
in absence of specific pleadings and
evidence in this regard. The shared
households where respondent no. 2 has
stated to have lived after marriage with her
late husband and thereafter for sometime
with revisionist nos. 1 to 3 belongs to
Revisionist No. 1 and 2 according to
version
of
the
complainant
herself.
Respondent nos. 4 and 5 being family
members of her late husband cannot be
saddled
with
the
responsibility
of
providing maintenance awarded to the
complainant/respondent no. 2 in impugned
judgment of court of first instance nor they
can be held accountable to provide an
accommodation to her in shared household
which does not belong to them, therefore,
the impugned order is liable to be modified
to the extent that relief granted by court
below in impugned judgment will be
confined to in respect of revisionist nos. 1
to 3 and revisionist nos. 4 and 5 are
exempted from complying with impugned
order passed by court below providing
maintenance and accommodation in shared
households to the complainant, therefore,
the revision stands partly allowed to the
extent that impugned order is quashed with
regard to opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in
Complaint Case no. 637 of 2020, who are
revisionist nos. 4 and 5 before this Court,
however, impugned order shall held good
in respect of revisionist nos. 1 to 3, who are
opposite party nos. 1 to 3 before court
below.

21. With this modification, this Court
does not find any illegality, irregularity, or
in proprietary in the impugned judgments
passed by court below which are under
challenged
before
this
Court.
The
impugned order shall be binding upon
respondent nos. 1 to 3 and will be
executable against them on application
made by respondent no. 2 in this respect,
however, it is made clear that observations
made while deciding this revision are only
for purpose of present revision and will not
be any bearing on criminal case filed by the
complainant against the revisionists.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 525
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Recall/Restoration Application No. 5 of 2023
in
Criminal Revision No. 1839 of 2023

Govind @ Arvind & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Amit Rana, Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, Sri
Neeraj Srivastava, Sri Suhel Ahmad Azmi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Adesh Kumar, Barkha Chaudhary

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 &
120B - The Code of criminal procedure,