# Shabana Bano Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 352
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision Defective No. 753 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shabana-bano-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52568
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125 & 397(1) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19 -
Enhancement of maintenance amount -
After
marriage,
respondent-husband
demanded
additional
dowry
-
When
demand not met, she was subjected to
cruelty, threats of divorce, etc. - Later on
revisionist served with Talaknama along
with copy of Mufti's decision. (Para 3, 5)

Revisionist filed complaint against her
husband and other family members under
sections of IPC and Domestic Violence Act,
thereafter
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
issued
summons
-
Order
challenged, matter stayed and referred to
Mediation with directions, proceedings
pending. (Para 6, 8, 9)

Maintenance Application dismissed for
want of prosecution - Revisionist filed
restoration
application,
dismissed
-
Second application filed, dismissed on
grounds of res judicata - Challenged
before
High
Court,
allowed
with
directions. (Para 10)

Family
Court issued
fresh
notice to
respondent, not appeared - Application
partly
allowed
ex-parte
granting
maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- p.m,
not complied by respondent - Execution
Application
filed
-
Simultaneously,
revisionist challenged impugned order
through
present
petition
on
various
grounds. (Para 11, 12)

Held, learned Family Judge ascertained
respondent's income based on letter dated
30.6.2023,
concerning
Second
Pay
Commission's implementation report and
not
on
St.ment
of
revisionist
and
1 All. Shabana Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
353
husband's salary - Family Judge unable to
determine
whether
respondent
holds
position of entry-level officer in district
cadre or selection-grade officer, actual
salary not assessed, his salary must be at
least Rs.1,44,840/- p.m, as per second
national judicial pay commission. (Para
24)

Revisionist filed application for interim
maintenance, case listed for 47 times,
application
remained
undecided
till
dismissed for non-prosecution - Family
Judge repetitively adjourned case without
recording
reasons,
nearly
32
times
personal exemption application allowed
on
ground
of
leave
application
not
sanctioned - Impugned orders set- aside.
(Para 35)

Revision petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,924 of 47,787. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39924 for what follows._

352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Investigation Office (Supra) directly
apply to the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand. Charge-sheet in this matter as
a final outcome of investigation was
submitted
by
the
police
within
the
stipulated period of 90 days for the purpose
of the provisions of Proviso to Section
167(2) (a) (I) Cr.P.C. If the court did not
take cognizance over the same or the matter
was ordered for further investigation it does
not falsify the factum of submission of
charge-sheet within stipulated time. It is
avowed in the judicial dictums as narrated
above that it is never necessary for a court
to take cognizance of charge-sheet in any
condition because it is not a statutory
requirement under section 167 Cr.P.C. and
in fact the litmus test is only the filing of
charge-sheet within stipulated time and
nothing further. The questions formulated
above are answered accordingly.

18.
In
the
given
facts
and
circumstances of this case and also relying
upon the dictum of law promulgated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments
referred hereinabove, this Court is of
considered view that the law submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellant in
Ritu Chhabaria (Supra) case does not
offer any help to the appellant. The appeal
is devoid of merit and deserves to be
dismissed. Hence, the appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 352
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Revision Defective No. 753 of 2024

Shabana Bano ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Mujeeb Khan, Naveen Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., M.A. Siddiqui

Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125 & 397(1) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19 -
Enhancement of maintenance amount -
After
marriage,
respondent-husband
demanded
additional
dowry
-
When
demand not met, she was subjected to
cruelty, threats of divorce, etc. - Later on
revisionist served with Talaknama along
with copy of Mufti's decision. (Para 3, 5)

Revisionist filed complaint against her
husband and other family members under
sections of IPC and Domestic Violence Act,
thereafter
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
issued
summons
-
Order
challenged, matter stayed and referred to
Mediation with directions, proceedings
pending. (Para 6, 8, 9)

Maintenance Application dismissed for
want of prosecution - Revisionist filed
restoration
application,
dismissed
-
Second application filed, dismissed on
grounds of res judicata - Challenged
before
High
Court,
allowed
with
directions. (Para 10)

Family
Court issued
fresh
notice to
respondent, not appeared - Application
partly
allowed
ex-parte
granting
maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- p.m,
not complied by respondent - Execution
Application
filed
-
Simultaneously,
revisionist challenged impugned order
through
present
petition
on
various
grounds. (Para 11, 12)

Held, learned Family Judge ascertained
respondent's income based on letter dated
30.6.2023,
concerning
Second
Pay
Commission's implementation report and
not
on
St.ment
of
revisionist
and
1 All. Shabana Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
353
husband's salary - Family Judge unable to
determine
whether
respondent
holds
position of entry-level officer in district
cadre or selection-grade officer, actual
salary not assessed, his salary must be at
least Rs.1,44,840/- p.m, as per second
national judicial pay commission. (Para
24)

Revisionist filed application for interim
maintenance, case listed for 47 times,
application
remained
undecided
till
dismissed for non-prosecution - Family
Judge repetitively adjourned case without
recording
reasons,
nearly
32
times
personal exemption application allowed
on
ground
of
leave
application
not
sanctioned - Impugned orders set- aside.
(Para 35)

Revision petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324

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

3. Shabana Bano Vs Imran Khan, (2010) 1 SCC 66

4. Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi, (2023) SCC
OnLine All 2684, (Para 51, 52, 65, 70, 71, 73)

5. Rajesh Babu Saxena Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2024) SCC OnLine All 2260, (Para 19, 20, 21,
27)

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist-wife, learned counsel for the
respondent-husband, learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent, and perused the entire
record.

2. This present revision has been
preferred seeking enhancement of the
maintenance amount awarded by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No.387
of 2019, filed by the revisionist-wife on
17.8.20219.

3. Succinctly, the brief facts are that
the revisionist-wife and the respondenthusband
were
married
on
4.5.2002,
according to Muslim rites and rituals. At
the time of marriage, the respondenthusband was serving as a Civil Judge
(Junior Division) at the District Court in
Sonbhadra. Currently, he holds the position
of Special Judge (UP Dacoity Affected
Area) in District Etah and previously
served as Additional Principal Judge at the
Family Court in Jaunpur from 3.8.2019 to
4.7.2022. The revisionist-wife asserts that
her parents spent approximately Rs.30
lakhs on the marriage. Additionally, during
the engagement ceremony, Rs.11 lakhs
were provided to purchase an Indica car;
however, the respondent-husband declined
to register the car in his name due to his
recent judicial appointment. Shortly after
the
marriage,
the
respondent-husband
allegedly demanded an additional dowry of
Rs.20 lakhs from the revisionist-wife's
parents. When this demand was not met, he
purportedly subjected her to cruelty,
including physical assaults, beatings, verbal
abuse, and threats of divorce.

4. The revisionist-wife endured all acts
of cruelty because her husband was a judge
who commanded significant respect in
society. To preserve his honour and
reputation and hoping that he would
eventually change, she initially refrained
from filing any complaints or maintenance
applications. She also chose not to disclose
his conduct to his colleagues or their
spouses to maintain the family's honour.
The couple has four children from their
marriage; Km. Rana Rajak, Km. Nazia
Rajak, Km. Subhana, and Isha Rajak, all of
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whom
have
been
living
with
the
respondent-husband since birth.

5. On 18.11.2013, the revisionist-wife
was thrown out of the matrimonial home
and was also served with a Talaknama
dated 2.12.2013 along with a copy of
Mufti's decision in this regard by post,
which was accordingly returned and replied
to by the revisionist-wife vide reply dated
30.12.2013 as a bundle of lies and false
assertions.

6. Leaving no option for conciliation
and
compromise,
on
20.1.2014,
the
revisionist-wife filed a Criminal Complaint
No.366 of 2014 against her husband Ali
Raza and 12 Others, under Sections 498-A,
504, 506, 323, 120-B IPC read with Section
3/4 of the Domestic Violence Act and two
cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing
Misc. Case No. 21 of 2014 and Misc. Case
No.387
of
2021
on
30.1.2014
and
17.8.2019,
respectively,
against
the
respondent-husband before the learned
Family Judge, Sonbhadra.

7. In Complaint Case No.366 of 2014,
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sonbhadra, issued summons on 11.9.2015
to Ali Raza (respondent-husband), Abdul
Rahim, Smt. Jahida Begum, Sohrab Ali,
Sabnam, Zareena, Shyara, Neha, Tarrunum,
Babloo, Moin, and Smt. Ruksana under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 of the
IPC, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and Hazrat Ali was
summoned under Sections 498-A, 323,
354, 504, and 506 of IPC, read with
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

8. The order dated 11.9.2015 was
challenged
before
this
Court
through
Application U/S 482 No.32214 of 2025. On
3.11.2015, this Court referred the matter to
the Mediation and Conciliation Center,
directing the applicants to deposit a sum of
Rs.15,000/- in the name of the revisionistwife through a demand draft with the
Registrar General of this Court within three
weeks
of
the
order.
The
mediation
proceedings were to be concluded within
three months. The Court also stayed the
proceedings in Complaint Case No.366 of
2014 until the next date of listing.

9. Since then, the matter has been listed
seven times before this court without any
effective hearing, with the last listing on
27.11.2021. Consequently, the trial court
proceedings have not advanced. Notably, this
Court's order dated 27.4.2016 clarified that,
"it is clarified that the interim order of stay if
there is any, is not extended." However, the
trial court failed to resume proceedings,
repeatedly citing a repetitive order "stay from
the High Court" since 2016. The matter has
since been listed 65 times without further
progress.

10. The Maintenance Application No.21
of 2014 was dismissed for want of
prosecution on 1.3.2017. The revisionist-wife
filed a restoration application, which was also
dismissed. Subsequently, she filed a second
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.,
registered as Case No.387 of 2019. This
application was dismissed on 20.5.2022 by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Sonbhadra, on the grounds of res judicata.
The dismissal order dated 20.5.2022 was
challenged before this Court by way of
Application U/S 482 No.2559 of 2023 by the
revisionist-wife, which was allowed vide
order dated 4.4.2023, with the direction to the
learned Family Judge, Sonbhadra, to decide
the Misc. Application No.387 of 2019 afresh
on merits, preferably within a period of six
months from the date of production of the
certified copy of the order.
1 All. Shabana Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
355

11. The learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sonbhadra, in compliance
with this Court's order dated 4.4.2023,
issued a fresh notice to the respondenthusband. However, the respondent-husband
failed
to
appear
before
the
court.
Consequently, the second maintenance
application was partly allowed ex-parte
vide order dated 3.10.2023, granting a
maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per
month, effective from the date of filing of
the application before the court.

12. The maintenance order dated
3.10.2023 has not been complied with by
the respondent-husband. Consequently, the
revisionist-wife
filed
an
Execution
Application No.552 of 2023 under Section
128
Cr.P.C.
for
realization
of
the
maintenance amount. Simultaneously, the
revisionist-wife
has
challenged
the
impugned order dated 3.10.2023, seeking
an enhancement of the maintenance amount
before this Court through the present
petition on the grounds stated inter alia: (i)
the revisionist-wife has diligently and
respectfully
fulfilled
her
matrimonial
obligations
towards
the
respondenthusband. Out of their wedlock, three
female and one male child were born.
Despite
this,
the
respondent-husband
unjustifiably threw out the revisionist-wife
from the matrimonial home on 18.11.2013.
Furthermore, without her consent or
knowledge,
the
respondent-husband
married another woman who is 22 years
younger to him, (ii) the first maintenance
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., filed
on 13.1.2014, was erroneously dismissed in
default by the learned Family Court under
the undue influence of the respondenthusband, who holds the position of a sitting
judge, (iii) the revisionist-wife's restoration
application was also improperly dismissed
for non-prosecution by the learned Family
Court, again under the undue influence of
the respondent-husband, (iv) the second
maintenance application was dismissed on
the grounds of res judicata by the learned
Family Court. However, this order was set
aside by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
who directed the case of the revisionistwife to be decided on merits, (v) without
properly considering the actual income and
expenses of the respondent-husband, the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was
only
partially
allowed,
erroneously
awarding
a
maintenance
amount
of
Rs.20,000/- per month, (vi) the impugned
ex-parte
order
has
been
passed
in
contravention of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha1;
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2; and Shabana
Bano v. Imran Khan, (vii) the affidavit of
assets and liabilities was neither filed by
the respondent-husband nor sought by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, for
the reasons best known to the learned
Family Judge. The application specifically
averred that the respondent-husband had
previously worked as a judge in the Family
Court at Jaunpur and is one of the seniormost judges in the district judiciary. This
fact was not taken into consideration by the
court while deciding the maintenance
application, (viii) the learned Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Sonbhadra,
erroneously concluded that the revisionistwife did not disclose the actual income of
the respondent-husband. Consequently, the
minimum salary of Rs.1,44,840/- for a
district judge at the entry level, as per the
second judicial pay commission, was
mistakenly taken into account for the
maintenance award. Furthermore, in the
absence of any reply or affidavit of assets
and
liabilities
from
the
respondenthusband, the court erroneously concluded
that
the
respondent-husband
has
no
independent source of income except his
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
salary. The revisionist-wife's counsel has
relied upon the judgments passed by this
Court in Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi4
and Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P.
and others in support of his arguments.

13. This is how the matter has reached
this Court for the enhancement of the
maintenance amount. For clarity, the
revisionist-wife has filed two maintenance
applications
against
the
respondenthusband; (i) Misc. Case No.21 of 2014, and
(ii) Misc. Case No.387 of 2019. Therefore,
this Court deemed it appropriate in the
given facts and circumstances to summon
the complete judicial record pertaining to
Misc. Case No.21 of 2014 and Misc. Case
No.387 of 2019, titled Shabana Bano v. Ali
Raza, along with a typed copy of all the
orders passed, and the copies of the service
reports submitted by the process server, in
order to gain a comprehensive view of the
proceedings conducted by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, against
respondent-husband. A notice was also
issued to the respondent-husband at his
official address at the Special Judge (UP
Dacoity Affected Area), Etah, through the
District Judge, Etah, directing him to file a
counter-affidavit
in
response
to
the
contentions raised by the revisionist-wife.

14. In response to the notice, the
respondent-husband appeared through his
counsel, Shri M.A. Siddiqui, and he sought
for a week's time to file a counter affidavit
in response to the contentions raised in the
instant revision and to the proceedings
conducted before the learned Family Court
in Misc. Case No.21 of 2014 and Misc.
Case No.387 of 2019- the maintenance
applications under section 125 Cr.P.C.

15. Thus, in compliance with the order
dated 10.5.2024, the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, transmitted the
original record of both cases. Upon
examination of the record in Misc. Case
No.21 of 2014, it was revealed that (i) the
case was repeatedly listed for hearing
nearly 64 times, (ii) the first hearing was
conducted on 15.1.2014, during which a
notice was issued to the respondenthusband, and the case was posted for
further proceedings on 22.2.2014, (iii) the
order dated 19.3.2014 indicates that service
was effected on the respondent-husband on
the previous date, and despite providing
sufficient opportunity, no one appeared on
his behalf. Therefore, the case proceeded
ex-parte, and it was again posted for
17.4.2014 for recording of evidence, (iv)
the ex-parte order was recalled, and the
matter was referred for mediation and
conciliation. Similar orders were passed
numerous times- more than 35 times. It was
also observed in the order dated 28.8.2015
that the respondent-husband had been
intentionally delaying the proceedings for
ulterior reasons, (v) on 17.8.2015, the
revisionist-wife filed an application for the
award of interim maintenance, which was
registered as Application No.30-G. This
application was objected to by the opposite
party, and despite the case being listed for
nearly 47 times after the interim application
for maintenance, it was never decided till
the case was consigned to the records after
being dismissed in default for nonappearance, (vi) the respondent-husband
filed personal exemption applications 32
times, citing that he could not appear
before the court for recording of evidence
due to his leave application being declined.
Unfortunately, all these personal exemption
applications were allowed, (vii) a circular
dated 03.07.2015 was issued by the
Hon'ble Administrative Judge of District
Sonbhadra, Lucknow Bench of this Court,
directing
the
C.J.M.,
A.C.J.M.,
and
1 All. Shabana Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
357
Principal Judge, Family Court, to strictly
adhere
to
the
provisions
related
to
adjournments, (viii) on many occasions, the
revisionist-wife
also
filed
personal
exemption
applications,
mainly
citing
illness and unavailability, (ix) there is no
record suggesting that the respondenthusband ever personally appeared either at
the mediation and conciliation center to
resolve the matrimonial dispute or before
the court, (x) the case was dismissed in
default on 1.3.2017 for the non-appearance
of the revisionist-wife, and (xi) the
restoration application, bearing No.138 of
2017, filed by the revisionist-wife was also
dismissed in default on 8.2.2018 for nonappearance.

16. Upon examination of the record in
Criminal Misc. Case No.387 of 2019, it is
revealed that; (i) the second maintenance
application was filed on 17.8.2019 on a
fresh cause of action. Accordingly, notice
was issued to the opposite party after
hearing the applicant's counsel, and the
case was listed for 19.8.2019 for filing
objections and mediation, (ii) the case was
listed nearly 42 times, (iii) the order dated
12.3.2020 indicates that the notice to the
opposite party was served on 17.2.2020
through registered post, (iv) on 15.2.2021,
the revisionist-wife filed an application to
proceed ex-parte, as the registered postal
receipt (i.e., the track consignment report)
confirmed delivery of the notice at the
District Court in Jaunpur, where the
respondent-husband was posted at the time.
However, the application was surprisingly
rejected, with the finding of the court that
service via postal receipt cannot be
considered valid service under the law, as it
is deemed secondary evidence according to
the relevant provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of Civil
Procedure (C.P.C.), (v) vide order dated
3.3.2023, the court proceeded ex-parte,
observing that for the past two years, no
one has appeared on behalf of the opposite
party, and sufficient time has been given
for the opposite party to file objections, (vi)
the order dated 22.3.2022 indicates that the
revisionist-wife/applicant filed a list of
witnesses through affidavits of PW-1, PW2, and PW-3. The recording of ex-parte
evidence was concluded, and the case was
listed for arguments on 2.4.2022, (vii) a
downloaded copy of the service record for
the respondent-husband has been marked as
Document No.37B/2, (viii) an affidavit of
assets
and
liabilities,
filed
by
the
revisionist-wife in accordance with the
judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra),
has been marked as 49-B/1, (ix) a letter
dated 19.7.2023, issued by Shri Rajendra
Singh-IV, the learned Principal Judge of
Sonbhadra, to the Registrar General of the
High Court, Allahabad, requesting the
service of summons to the respondenthusband and directing him to appear before
the Family Court on 9.8.2023, (x) a letter
dated 7.8.2023, by the Officer-In-Charge,
Central
Nazir,
District
Court,
Etah,
informing the Registrar General of this
Court about the service on the respondenthusband, has been marked as 53-B/1, (xi)
there are numerous orders of miscellaneous
nature, in which either the respondenthusband or the revisionist-wife has moved
personal exemption applications citing
various reasons, (xii) the order dated
25.4.2022 suggests that the objection raised
by the respondent- husband and the
documents filed in his support shall be
considered as evidence. This was allowed
vide order dated 29.4.2022, and after
hearing
the
revisionist-wife,
the
maintenance application was dismissed on
the ground of res-judicata on 20.5.2022,
(xiii) aggrieved by the order dated
20.5.2022,
the
revisionist-wife
filed
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application No.35559/2023 under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order. This
application was allowed vide order dated
4.4.2023, with the direction to the learned
Family Judge to decide the maintenance
application on merits, preferably within six
months.

17. In compliance with the order dated
27.5.2024, a counter affidavit was filed by
the
respondent-husband.
Upon
examination, it's revealed that the counter
affidavit has not been filed in conformity
with the order dated 27.5.2024, despite
being given proper opportunity. Therefore,
the respondent-husband was directed to
appear in person before this Court on
11.6.2024. On 11.6.2024, the respondenthusband appeared in person, along with a
copy of a supplementary counter affidavit,
which
was
taken
on
record.
The
respondent-husband was also heard in
person and confronted with numerous
orders passed by the learned Family Judge
in Misc. Application No.21 of 2014 and
Misc. Application No.387 of 2019. The
first query was why, despite being involved
in litigation since 2014, he has not
personally appeared before any court or
mediation centre to resolve the issue
amicably; his answer was in complete
silence. The respondent-husband was then
confronted with the findings recorded by
the
Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Sonbhadra, in the order dated 3.10.2023,
whether notice was served to him through
the Registrar General of this Court. He was
asked why it was necessary for the
Presiding Officer to effect the service
through Registrar General of this Court.
Again, his answer was in complete silence.
The
respondent-husband
was
also
confronted with various orders passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
but he chose not to respond. It is important
to note that both cases were listed almost
106 times before the learned Family Court.

18. In the counter affidavit dated
29.5.2024,
filed
by
the
respondenthusband, it is stated that the respondenthusband has no house in his name, except
for one ancestral house in his village,
which is shared equally among his four
brothers.
The
respondent-husband
purchased a residential plot on 19.12.2019
for Rs.28,40,000/- at village Murgai Pargna
Arail,
District
Prayagraj,
which
was
communicated to the High Court. The
possession of the flat could not be delivered
to him due to a dispute pending before the
RERA Court in Lucknow. Subsequently,
the respondent-husband purchased another
residential plot measuring 40 x 50 feet
situated at village Siromanpur, Pargna
Khairagarh, Meja, Bharatganj, District
Prayagraj, for Rs.25 lacs. This information
was also provided to the High Court. The
respondent-husband
is
responsible
for
taking care of the well-being of four
siblings: (i) Km. Rana Rajak, aged about 20
years, (ii) Km. Nazia Rajak, aged about 18
years; (iii) Subhana, aged about 13 years;
and (iii) Isha Raza, aged about 14 years; all
of whom are studying, and a significant
amount is being spent on their education.
Additionally, the respondent-husband has
employed a driver, for which he pays
Rs.1,60,000/- annually towards salary. It is
also mentioned that the revisionist-wife is a
well-educated lady, having graduated from
Bhau Devras Government College, Dudhi,
Sonbhadra, and is capable of earning for
her maintenance. Therefore, he claims that
he is not in a position to pay Rs.20,000/-
per month towards maintenance.

19. In the first counter affidavit, the
respondent-husband did not provide the
necessary details required under Enclosure-
1 All. Shabana Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
359
I, as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha case
(supra). Consequently, he was directed to
file a supplementary affidavit. Upon
examination of the supplementary affidavit
dated 19.6.2024, it is revealed that from
2019 to 2022, when the revisionist-wife
had
filed
the
second
maintenance
application, the respondent-husband's gross
salary was Rs.1,59,773/- per month, with a
net salary of Rs.99,373/- after deductions.
In the financial year 2020-2021, his gross
salary was Rs.1,63,189/- per month, with a
net salary of Rs.1,12,789/- after deductions.
In the financial year 2022-2023, his gross
salary was Rs.2,01,734/-, and he was
receiving Rs.1,31,334/- as net salary. For
the financial year 2023-2024, his gross
salary was Rs.3,18,960/- per month, with a
net salary of Rs.2,23,560/- per month.

20. The respondent-husband has also
invested Rs.12,69,201.39/- in equity shares
for the future welfare of his dependents. He
further states that he has two bank
accounts; account no.42197838591 and
account no.31417926245 with SBI bank.
He was unable to provide the last two
years' account statements for account
no.31417926245 due to time constraints.
The respondent-husband also mentions that
the revisionist-wife has been residing
separately since 18.11.2013, and he issued
a Talaq on 3.12.2013. In addition to the
above details, the respondent-husband has
filed a copy of his reply submitted to the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra,
in Case No.384 of 2014, under Section
126(2) Cr.P.C. This reply outlines the
reasons for his non-appearance before the
learned Family Court, as well as details
regarding the restoration application and
the recall of the ex-parte order. The
affidavit also contains allegations against
his counsel, who did not appear before the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
despite instructions to diligently and
effectively defend the respondent-husband.

21. Upon examination of the trial court
records, posting details uploaded on the
official website of this Court, and the
impugned order, this Court notes that the
respondent-husband is a judicial officer. He
joined
the
Judicial
Service
as
a
Munsif/Civil Judge on 4.7.2001 and was
promoted to the Higher Judicial Services
under Rule 22(1) of the U.P. Higher
Judicial
Services
Rules,
1975,
on
17.2.2018. Since then, the respondenthusband has served in various capacities.
Between 3.8.2019 and 4.7.2022, he worked
as an Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, at Jaunpur, and is currently serving
as a Special Judge (U.P. Dacoity Affected
Area) at Etah.

22. The record further shows that the
revisionist-wife filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., registered as Case
No.21/2014, which was dismissed in
default on 1.3.2017 for non-appearance and
restoration application on 08.02.2028 after
being listed 64 times. During this period,
the application for interim maintenance was
also not decided by the court, even though
case was listed 47 times till it was
dismissed in default by court after filing the
application
for
interim
maintenance.
Specific allegations were made in that
application regarding cruelty and willful
desertion
by
the
respondent-husband,
including (i) that he was working as an
Additional Sessions Judge at Jaunpur, (ii)
his salary was Rs.1,50,000/- per month, and
(iii) he owned his own house and
agricultural lands, in addition to other
properties,
and
earned
approximately
Rs.2,50,000/- per month. Based on these
averments, the revisionist-wife claimed
maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. The record further reveals that the
revisionist-wife
then
filed
a
second
maintenance application under Section 125
Cr.P.C., which was registered as Misc Case
No.387 of 2019. This application was
dismissed on 20.5.2022 on the ground of
res judicata. Thereafter, the revisionist-wife
challenged the order dated 20.5.2022 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. This
Court, by order dated 4.4.2023, restored
Misc Case No.387 of 2019 to its original
number and directed the learned Family
Judge to decide the case on its merits
within six months. The Principal Family
Judge, Sonbhadra, became aware of the
order
dated
4.4.2023
on
13.7.2023,
following which a notice dated 9.8.2023
was served to the respondent-husband
through the Registrar General of this Court.
Despite receiving the notice on 9.8.2023,
the respondent-husband did not appear
before the Court to present his defense in
response to the Section 125 Cr.P.C.
application. As a result, the learned Family
Court proceeded to pass an impugned exparte order on the merits against the
respondent-husband.

24. Upon examining the impugned
order, it is evident that the learned Family
Judge ascertained the respondent-husband's
income based on a letter dated 30.6.2023
issued by the Judicial Section, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, concerning the Second
Pay Commission's implementation report
and not based on the statement of the
revisionist-wife and respondent- husband's
salary- an open secret for a serving Judge.
The
Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per
month to the revisionist-wife from the date
of filing the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C filed in 2019. The Family Judge,
Sonbhadra, observed that based on the
documents filed by the revisionist-wife and
the perusal of the order dated 22.07.2022, it
could not be determined whether the
respondent-husband holds the position of
entry-level officer in the district cadre or a
selection-grade
officer.
Therefore,
his
actual salary could not be accurately
assessed, but it is clear that his salary must
be at least Rs.1,44,840/- per month, as per
the
second
national
judicial
pay
commission.

25. It is surprising that the learned
Family Judge was unaware of the salary
structure for High Judicial Service Officers
in Uttar Pradesh and, for the reasons best
known to him, erroneously assumed the
respondent-husband's
salary
to
be
equivalent to the salary of an entry-level
judicial officer in the cadre of district judge
to ascertain his actual income. Needless to
say, both - learned Judge Family Court,
Sonbhadra and respondent-husband - have
been serving in the District Judge Cadre in
Uttar Pradesh and are Judge for almost 25
years; both were posted as Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in Sonbhadra between
2003-2004.
Shockingly,
the
learned
Presiding
Judge,
Family
Court,
Sonbhadra, remains unaware of the
respondent-husband's basic pay, whether
he holds the position of selection grade
level or entry grade level. Without
making any comments on the learned
Judge's wisdom and impartiality, as he is
not present before this court, I leave it for
him
to
self-introspect
and
realize.
However,
I
must
express
my
disappointment that the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, has not been fair
and impartial towards the revisionist-wife
and has failed to uphold the law and the
directions issued by the constitutional
courts
concerning
the
award
of
maintenance to a wife in sting of
judgements.
1 All. Shabana Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
361

26.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist-wife relied upon Parul Tyagi
case (supra), and Rajesh Babu Saxena's
case (supra). The relevant portion of
Rajesh Babu Saxena's case is extracted
herein below:

"19. The concern and anguish
were expressed by the Supreme Court in
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan3 the
Supreme Court was of the view that an
application
for
grant
of
interim
maintenance has to be disposed of at the
earliest. When the wife applies for a grant
of maintenance, the delay in the disposal of
the application, to say the least, is an
unacceptable situation. It is, in fact, a
distressing phenomenon. These litigations
can corrode human relationships not only
today but will also impact for years to
come, potentially taking a toll on society.
The Court must have complete control over
the proceeding and not permit the lis to
swim the unpredictable grand river of time
without knowing when it shall land on the
shores or take shelter in a corner tree that
stands "still" on some unknown river bank.
It cannot allow it to sing the song of the
brook, "men may come, and men may go,
but I go on forever." This would be the
greatest tragedy to the adjudicating system,
which is required to deal with the most
sensitive matters between the man and wife
or other family members relating to
matrimonial and domestic affairs. There
has to be a proactive approach in this
regard, and the said approach should be
instilled in the Family Court Judges by the
Judicial Academies functioning under the
High Courts. The delay occurs due to the
uncontrolled design of the parties or the
lethargy and apathy shown by the Judges
who man the Family Courts.

20. The object of maintenance
proceedings is not to punish a person but to
prevent vagrancy by compelling those who
can support those who cannot support
themselves and have a moral claim to
support them. Section 125 Cr. P.C.
measures social justice4. It is specially
enacted to protect women and children and
falls within the constitutional sweep of
Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of
the Constitution of India5. The object of
maintenance is to prevent the vagrancy and
destitution of a deserted wife by providing
her food, clothing, and shelter through a
speedy
remedy.
It
affects
a
man's
fundamental rights and natural duties to
maintain his wife, children and parents
who cannot maintain themselves6.

21. The maintenance allowance
to the wife is the absolute maintenance
right. The husband cannot absolve himself
from his obligation to provide maintenance
merely on the plea of financial constraints
and inability to earn despite being ablebodied.
*****************************

27. The courts should adhere to
constitutional
principles
and
legal
precedents
established
by
the
Constitutional
Courts,
employing
a
consistent and rational approach. The
underlying and fundamental tenet behind
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code aims to improve the financial
circumstances and alleviate the emotional
distress endured by a woman when
compelled to depart from the marital
residence. The principle of sustenance gets
more heightened when the children are
with her."

27. In the Parul Tyagi case (supra),
this Court thus held:

"51.
Purity
of
judicial
administration is necessary; a condition
precedent for success of independence of
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
administration of justice. In essence, the
equal, uniform and consistent application
of law is the hallmark of the judicial
administration. The primary reason for
enforcing superior courts' guidelines is to
preserve the authority and credibility of the
judiciary. If their guidelines are routinely
ignored, for whatever reasons, it erodes
public trust in the legal system and sets
dangerous precedents. It can lead to
inconsistent application of the law, which
undermines
the
principles
of
legal
certainty.

52. The non-adherence of the
Supreme Court guidelines by subordinate
courts undermines the very essence of the
rule of law, leading to unequal treatment
leading to erosion of judicial precedent,
perpetuating injustice and inequality, loss
of public confidence in the judiciary by the
citizens, and a fragmented legal landscape,
where each court operates independently.
**************************

65. Litigants approach the courts
with grievances, seeking resolution and
redress for their issues. Their cases are not
just legal matters but significant aspects of
their lives, rights, and property are
involved. The outcome of the case can
profoundly
impact
their
well-being,
livelihood, and sense of security.
*************************

70. This Court has also noticed
on
numerous
occasions
that
the
application/petitions for maintenance by
legally wedded wives and old-aged parents
are kept pending for years and years
without an effective hearing, and they are
not timely decided or attended to.

71. In due course or over time,
when a litigant finally receives some relief
from the Court after a long and arduous
legal battle, it may not serve the immediate
purpose. By the time, the litigant get relief
from the courts, have already endured
substantial hardship and uncertainty. The
associated stress, financial burdens, and
emotional
tolls
makes
a
litigant
disappointed.
***********************

73. Efforts to expedite the legal
process and provide timely relief are
crucial for the effectiveness of justice and
ensuring that litigants receive fair and
meaningful outcomes. It is essential for the
judges to recognise the significance of time
in the pursuit of justice and work towards
reducing delays, improving efficiency, and
providing a sense of closure to those
seeking redress through the legal system.

28. The conduct and approach of the
respondent-husband are deeply concerning
for the reasons that he is not an ordinary
individual without means or resources,
rather he is an educated and capable person
with a background in law and extensive
experience in the dispensation of justice.
The role of a judge is critical in
maintaining public trust in the judiciary and
fostering a culture where rights are upheld,
laws
are
respected,
and
matrimonial
disputes are resolved amicably.

29. It is true that judges, like all
individuals, are entitled to the rights
guaranteed to every citizen, but they must
also be mindful of the elevated status and
respect afforded to them, and such status
comes with a greater responsibility to
discharge personal, social, and judicial
duties in a manner that upholds the rule of
law. Unfortunately, the respondent-husband
has failed to meet these expectations,
thereby undermining the principles of
justice and the values he was entrusted to
uphold.

30. The legal profession has long been
anchored in principles of honesty and
1 All. Shabana Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
363
integrity, forming its foundation and
ensuring the proper administration of
justice. These virtues are particularly
emphasized for judges, whose role is
central to dispensing justice impartially and
equitably. However, when members of the
judiciary themselves become embroiled in
personal litigation, the focus shifts to a
critical intersection and needs to deal with
greater caution and responsibility.

31. Judges are not mere adjudicators
of law; they embody the legal system's
credibility and are held to the highest
standards
of
accountability.
Their
professional integrity must, without fail, be
reflected in their personal conduct. Judges
involved in personal litigation face a dual
standard of scrutiny. It is undisputable that
a judge's personal actions in court influence
public perception of the judiciary. If a
judge appears vindictive, manipulative, or
unreasonably
combative,
it
risks
undermining public trust in the legal
system.

32. A judge embroiled in litigation
must tread carefully to ensure their actions
do not conflict with the principles they
espouse in the courtroom and shall adhere
to procedural fairness. Judges should
remain mindful that their conduct, even as
private citizens, reflects on the institution
they represent.

33. The conduct of the respondenthusband would seriously prejudice the
rights of the revisionist-wife, firstly,
because she has been living a destitute life
since 2018. The respondent-husband has
been a Judicial Officer since 2001 and is
well aware of the rights of a wife under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.