# Shiv Mohan & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 919
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3102 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh - I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-mohan-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51870
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 311 & 397 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323,
504 & 304 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 138 - Revisionists challenged order
dated 11.05.2023 rejecting their application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 Balwant
Singh for cross-examination in a trial for
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offences under Sections 323, 504, 304 I.P.C.
Court held: (1) Section 311 Cr.P.C. grants wide
discretionary power to recall witnesses if
essential for a just decision, to be exercised
judiciously
with
caution
to
avoid
filling
prosecution
lacunae
or
causing
prejudice
(Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs St. of Bihar, AIR 2013
SC
3081).
(2)
P.W.1's
cross-examination,
concluded on 17.11.2021, did not cover injuries
to revisionist's sons or N.C.R. No. 46 of 2020,
which was relevant as both F.I.R. and N.C.R.
arose from the same incident on 12.05.2020
(Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs CBI, (2019) 14
SCC 328). (3) Injury reports and x-ray
confirming fracture to revisionist's son justified
recalling P.W.1 for cross-examination on these
points, as they were essential for a just
decision, despite prior opportunity for crossexamination (Mohanlal Shyam Ji Soni Vs U.O.I.,
1991 Supp (1) SCC 271). (4) Trial court's
rejection of the application without considering
the essentiality of evidence was an illegality,
warranting recall subject to Rs. 10,000/- cost to
prevent abuse of process (St. (NCT of Delhi) Vs
Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402). Revision
allowed; trial court directed to permit crossexamination on N.C.R. and injuries on a fixed
date with no adjournment. (Paras 12-25)

Criminal Revision Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Shiv Mohan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
919
Kumar (supra) that 25% of net income of
the husband should be paid to the wife as
maintenance.

21. The trial court has added
Rs.5,344/- as agricultural income into the
amount of monthly pension of Rs.34,656/-
of the revisionist Matapher and has taken
his monthly income as Rs.40,000/-. The
objection of revisionist is that he is neither
in the possession nor drawing any income
from the agricultural land. Even if the
income from agricultural land is excluded,
admittedly
revisionist
is
earning
Rs.34,656/- as monthly pension.

22. Applying the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, 25% of monthly
pension will be Rs.8,664/- whereas the trial
court has granted Rs.7,000/- per month as
monthly maintenance allowance to the
opposite party no. 2, Smt. Durga Devi.
Therefore, the maintenance allowance
granted to the opposite party no. 2 cannot
be considered as excessive vis-a-vis the
monthly pension of the revisionist rather it
is on the lower side. Therefore, the trial
court has rightly rejected his application
filed u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for reduction in the
maintenance allowance on the ground that
he is not drawing any income from the
agricultural land.

23. From the above discussion, I am
of the view that there is no illegality,
irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the
impugned orders dated 10.12.2019 and
07.12.2022 passed by the trial court. There
is no merit in the criminal revision and is
liable to be dismissed.

24.

The
monthly
maintenance
allowance provided by the trial court of
Rs.7,000/- shall be payable to the opposite
party no. 2, Smt. Durga Devi from the date
of her filing application u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
which shall be payable till 10th of each
calendar
month.
The
arrears
of
maintenance allowance shall be paid by the
revisionist in four equal amounts within a
period of six months. The amount of
maintenance allowance already paid to the
opposite party no. 2 shall be set off against
this amount.

25. The present criminal revision is
dismissed in terms of above mentioned
conditions.

26. The copy of the order be sent to
the trial court concerned forthwith for
necessary compliance.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 919
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3102 of 2023

Shiv Mohan & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Phool Singh Yadav, Sri Vaibhav Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Ashutosh Mishra, Sri Yashdeep
Rastogi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 311 & 397 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323,
504 & 304 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 138 - Revisionists challenged order
dated 11.05.2023 rejecting their application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 Balwant
Singh for cross-examination in a trial for
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offences under Sections 323, 504, 304 I.P.C.
Court held: (1) Section 311 Cr.P.C. grants wide
discretionary power to recall witnesses if
essential for a just decision, to be exercised
judiciously
with
caution
to
avoid
filling
prosecution
lacunae
or
causing
prejudice
(Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs St. of Bihar, AIR 2013
SC
3081).
(2)
P.W.1's
cross-examination,
concluded on 17.11.2021, did not cover injuries
to revisionist's sons or N.C.R. No. 46 of 2020,
which was relevant as both F.I.R. and N.C.R.
arose from the same incident on 12.05.2020
(Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs CBI, (2019) 14
SCC 328). (3) Injury reports and x-ray
confirming fracture to revisionist's son justified
recalling P.W.1 for cross-examination on these
points, as they were essential for a just
decision, despite prior opportunity for crossexamination (Mohanlal Shyam Ji Soni Vs U.O.I.,
1991 Supp (1) SCC 271). (4) Trial court's
rejection of the application without considering
the essentiality of evidence was an illegality,
warranting recall subject to Rs. 10,000/- cost to
prevent abuse of process (St. (NCT of Delhi) Vs
Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402). Revision
allowed; trial court directed to permit crossexamination on N.C.R. and injuries on a fixed
date with no adjournment. (Paras 12-25)

Criminal Revision Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs St. of Bihar, AIR
2013 SC 3081 (Para 12)

2. Mohanlal Shyam Ji Soni Vs U.O.I., 1991 Supp
(1) SCC 271 (Para 6)

3. Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs Central Bureau
of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 (Para 14)

4. St. (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav,
(2016) 2 SCC 402 (Para 15)

5. Rajendra Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Application
U/S 482 No. 25531 of 2022 (Para 6)

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

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists,
learned
counsel
for
the
opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. The present criminal revision has
been instituted against the impugned
judgement
and
order
dated
11.05.2023 passed by Special Judge (E.C.
Act), Fatehpur in S.T. No. 679 of 2020
(State Vs. Shiv Mohan and others) arising
out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2020 under
sections 323, 504, 304 I.P.C., Police
Station- Malwan, District- Fatehpur.

3. By the impugned order, the trial
court has rejected the application 16-B filed
by the revisionist no. 1 under section 311
Cr.P.C. to summon P.W.1 Balwant Singh
for cross-examination.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submitted that regarding the incident, an
N.C.R. against Raj Kumar and Gore Lal
was registered by P.W.1 Balwant Singh.
The accused, Shiv Mohan also got
registered an F.I.R./N.C.R. No. 46 of 2020
under Section 323, 504 I.P.C., Police
Station- Malwan, District- Fatehpur. In the
F.I.R./N.C.R. of the alleged incident
registered by the revisionist no. 1, his son
had received serious injuries in the same
incident. It has been also submitted that in
the case registered by Balwant Singh, after
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in
Case Crime No. 88 of 2020 under Sections
323, 504, 304 I.P.C. against revisionists
and two other co-accused persons. It has
also been submitted that the revisionist no.
1 has filed an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C.
in
the
court
concerned
for
examination of P.W.1 Balwant Singh,
which was rejected. The record was not
available and no investigation was done in
the aforesaid N.C.R. No. 46 of 2020.
Inspite of the order passed in N.C.R.,
record has been lost in the police station. It
4 All. Shiv Mohan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
921
has been also submitted that both F.I.R. and
N.C.R. relates to the same incident, in
which, charge sheet was filed against the
revisionists and others on his side. The
revisionist no. 1 has received grievous
injury on his parietal left skull. The defence
was entitled to ask question to P.W.1
Balwant Singh regarding injury received by
Raj Kumar and Gore Lal on the side of
accused. It has also been submitted that the
trial court has rejected the application filed
under
Section
311
Cr.P.C.
without
application of mind and ignoring the
provision of law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for
opposite
party
No.2/
informant
has
submitted that the trial court has passed the
impugned order considering the facts of the
case and law applicable for summoning
witnesses u/s 311 Cr.P.C. It has also been
submitted that there is no illegality in the
impugned order. It has also been submitted
that the revisionists/ defence has not
mentioned in the application under Section
311 Cr.P.C. any specific question to be
asked to P.W.1 Balwant Singh in crossexamination. It has also been submitted that
P.W.1 Balwant Singh is not named in the
N.C.R. There is no occasion to summon
P.W.1 for cross-examination. It has also
been submitted that in the case relating to
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the
statement of P.W.1 Balwant Singh was
recorded on 17.03.2011 and his crossexamination was concluded on 17.11.2021.
The revisionists were granted sufficient
time to cross-examine P.W.1 Balwant
Singh. The revisionists have not filed copy
of N.C.R. lodged by him against opposite
party nos. 2 and persons of his side.

6. Learned counsel for the
revisionists and learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 have relied upon the
following rulings in support of their
arguments :-

(i) Application U/S 482 No.
25531 of 2022, Rajendra Kumar Vs.
State of U.P.
 (ii) Mohanlal Shyam Ji Soni Vs.
Union of India and Another, decided in
1991

(iii) Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs.
State of Bihar and others, AIR 2013 SC
3081

(iv) State (NCT of Delhi) Vs.
Shiv Kumar Yadav and Another, (2016)
2 SCC 402

7. The learned counsels for both
parties have been heard. Perused the record
of
criminal
revision
including
the
impugned order.

8. The revisionist, Shiv Mohan has
filed application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. on
17.07.2022 for summoning P.W.1 Balwant
Singh for cross-examination regarding the
injuries received by his sons, Raj Kumar
and Gore Lal in the cross case and on some
other points.

9. In the application, it iss stated that
his previous counsel did not cross-examine
P.W.1 on this point. Therefore, P.W.1
Balwant Singh may be summoned so that
applicant's counsel may cross-examine him
on this point. The application was rejected
by the trial court by the impugned order
dated 11.05.2023 on the ground that the
examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Balwant
Singh was recorded on 17.03.2021. On that
date, his cross-examination was deferred
due to the adjournment application of
defence.

10. P.W.1 Balwant Singh was crossexamined about 8 months after his
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination-in-chief on 17.11.2021. In the
impugned order, the trial court has also
mentioned that the applicant/defence had
not submitted any document relating to
N.C.R. of the alleged cross case.

11. The statutory provisions relating
to summoning of a person as a witness
during trial is provided u/s 311 Cr.P.C.
which is as follows :

Section 311 of Code of Criminal
Procedure :

311. Power to summon material
witness, or examine person present - Any
court may, at any stage of any inquiry,
trial or other proceeding under this Code,
summon any person as a witness, or
examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as a witness, or recall and
re-examine any person already examined;
and the court shall summon and examine
or recall and re-examine any such person
if his evidence appears to it to be essential
to the just decision of the case.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajaram Prasad Yadav (supra), has
narrated several guidelines which the court
should take into consideration while
deciding the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.
After considering the earlier precedent, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has explained and
enumerated following principles regarding
application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. which is as
follows :

"14. A conspicuous reading of
Section 311 Cr P C would show that
widest of the powers have been invested
with the courts when it comes to the
question of summoning a witness or to
recall or re-examine any witness already
examined. A reading of the provision
shows that the expression "any" has been
used as a prefix to "court", "inquiry",
"trial", "other proceeding", "person as a
witness", "person in attendance though
not summoned as a witness", and "person
already examined". By using the said
expression "any" as a prefix to the
various expressions mentioned above, it is
ultimately stated that all that was required
to be satisfied by the court was only in
relation to such evidence that appears to
the court to be essential for the just
decision of the case.

Section 138 of the Evidence Act,
prescribed the order of examination of a
witness in the court. The order of reexamination is also prescribed calling for
such a witness so desired for such reexamination. Therefore, a reading of
Section 311 CrPC and Section 138
Evidence Act, insofar as it comes to the
question of a criminal trial, the order of
re-examination at the desire of any person
under Section 138, will have to necessarily
be in consonance with the prescription
contained in Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is,
therefore, imperative that the invocation
of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its application
in a particular case can be ordered by the
court, only by bearing in mind the object
and purport of the said provision, namely,
for achieving a just decision of the case as
noted by us earlier. The power vested
under the said provision is made available
to any court at any stage in any inquiry or
trial or other proceeding initiated under
the Code for the purpose of summoning
any person as a witness or for examining
any person in attendance, even though not
summoned as witness or to recall or reexamine any person already examined.
Insofar as recalling and re-examination of
any person already examined, the court
must necessarily consider and ensure that
such recall and re-examination of any
person, appears in the view of the court to
4 All. Shiv Mohan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
923
be essential for the just decision of the
case.
Therefore,
the
paramount
requirement is just decision and for that
purpose the essentiality of a person to be
recalled and re-examined has to be
ascertained. To put it differently, while
such a widest power is invested with the
court, it is needless to state that exercise of
such power should be made judicially and
also with extreme care and caution.

xxx

23.
From
a
conspectus
consideration of the above decisions,
while dealing with an application under
Section 311 Cr P C read along with
Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel
the following principles will have to be
borne in mind by the courts:

a) Whether the court is right in
thinking that the new evidence is needed
by it? Whether the evidence sought to be
led in under Section 311 is noted by the
court for a just decision of a case?

b) The exercise of the widest
discretionary power under Section 311
CrPC should ensure that the judgment
should not be rendered on inchoate,
inconclusive speculative presentation of
facts, as thereby the ends of justice would
be defeated.

c) If evidence of any witness
appears to the court to be essential to the
just decision of the case, it is the power of
the court to summon and examine or
recall and re-examine any such person.

d) The exercise of power under
Section 311 Cr P C should be resorted to
only with the object of finding out the
truth or obtaining proper proof for such
facts, which will lead to a just and correct
decision of the case.

e) The exercise of the said power
cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in
a prosecution case, unless the facts and
circumstances of the case make it
apparent that the exercise of power by the
court would result in causing serious
prejudice to the accused, resulting in
miscarriage of justice.

f) The wide discretionary power
should be exercised judiciously and not
arbitrarily.

g) The court must satisfy itself
that it was in every respect essential to
examine such a witness or to recall him
for further examination in order to arrive
at a just decision of the case.

h) The object of Section 311 Cr
P C simultaneously imposes a duty on the
court to determine the truth and to render
a just decision.

i) The court arrives at the
conclusion that additional evidence is
necessary, not because it would be
impossible to pronounce the judgment
without it, but because there would be a
failure of justice without such evidence
being considered.

j) Exigency of the situation, fair
play and good sense should be the
safeguard, while exercising the discretion.
The court should bear in mind that no
party in a trial can be foreclosed from
correcting errors and that if proper
evidence was not adduced or a relevant
material was not brought on record due to
any inadvertence, the court should be
magnanimous in permitting such mistakes
to be rectified.

k) The court should be conscious
of the position that after all the trial is
basically for the prisoners and the court
should afford an opportunity to them in
the fairest manner possible. In that parity
of reasoning, it would be safe to err in
favour
of
the
accused
getting
an
opportunity rather than protecting the
prosecution against possible prejudice at
the cost of the accused. The court should
bear in mind that improper or capricious
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise of such a discretionary power,
may lead to undesirable results.

l) The additional evidence must
not be received as a disguise or to change
the nature of the case against any of the
party.

m) The power must be exercised
keeping in mind that the evidence that is
likely to be tendered, would be germane to
the issue involved and also ensure that an
opportunity of rebuttal is given to the
other party.

n) The power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the
Court only in order to meet the ends of
justice for strong and valid reasons and
the same must be exercised with care,
caution and circumspection. The court
should bear in mind that fair trial entails
the interest of the accused, the victim and
the society and, therefore, the grant of fair
and proper opportunities to the persons
concerned, must be ensured being a
constitutional goal, as well as a human
right."

13. The primary factor for deciding
the
application
u/s
311
Cr.P.C.
is
essentiality of the evidence to arrive at a
just decision of the case. The resultant
filling up the loopholes on account of
allowing the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is
merely subsidiary factor and the court's
determination of the application should
only be based on test of essentiality of
evidence.

14. In Swapan Kumar Chatterjee
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
2019 (14) SCC 328, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as hereunder :

"It is well settled that the power
conferred under Section 311 should be
invoked by the court only to meet the ends
of justice. The power is to be exercised
only for strong and valid reasons and it
should be exercised with great caution
and circumspection. The court has vide
power under this Section to even recall
witnesses for re-examination or further
examination, necessary in the interest of
justice, but the same has to be exercised
after taking into consideration the facts
and circumstances of each case. The
power under this provision shall not be
exercised if the court is of the view that
the application has been filed as an abuse
of the process of law."

15. In State (NCT of Delhi) (supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the
question of re-summoning witness on the
ground of change of defence counsel as
follows :-

"While advancement of justice
remains the prime object of law, it cannot
be understood to mean that recall can be
allowed for the asking or reasons related
to mere convenience. It has normally to be
presumed that a counsel conducting a
case is competent particularly when a
counsel is appointed by choice of a
litigant. Taken to its logical end, the
principle that a retrial must follow on
every change of a counsel, can have
serious consequences on conduct of trials
and the criminal justice system. The
witnesses cannot be expected to face the
hardship of appearing in court repeatedly,
particularly in sensitive cases such as the
present one. It can result in undue
hardship for the victims, especially so, of
heinous crimes, if they are required to
repeatedly appear in court to face crossexamination."

16. Now, it is desirable to examine
the facts of the case in the light of law laid
4 All. Shiv Mohan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
925
down by the Apex Court for exercise of
power u/s 311 Cr.P.C. From the perusal of
the first information report relating to the
present case and the N.C.R. lodged by the
revisionist against the persons on the side
of informant, Balwant Singh, it tranpsires
that both F.I.R. and N.C.R. relates to the
same incident which took place on
12.05.2020 at 7 p.m.

17. The revisionist has filed injury
report of his sons, Raj Kumar and Gore Lal.
Although, the revisionist, Shiv Mohan had
lodged the N.C.R. No. 46 of 2020 under
Section 323, 504 I.P.C. on the next day of
the incident on 13.05.2020 in Police Station-
Malwan, District- Fatehpur. The revisionist
has filed injury reports of his sons, Raj
Kumar and Gore Lal, allegedly injured in
the same incident. Raj Kumar and Gore Lal
were medically examined on 13.05.2020 at
4:05 p.m. and 4:16 p.m. at District Hospital,
Fatehpur. The skull of injured Gore Lal was
x-rayed in Department of Radiology and
Ultrasound, Combined District Hospital,
Kaushambi. According to his x-ray report,
'fracture of left sided parietal bone of skull
seen'. The injured Gore Lal has also
submitted application u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C. in
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Fatehpur for disposal.

18.

In
the
above
facts
and
circumstances of the case, it prima facie,
appears that in the occurrence relating to
the
present
sessions
trial,
sons
of
revisionist, Raj Kumar and Gore Lal, have
also received injuries for which he had
submitted
written
report
which
was
registered as N.C.R. No. 46 of 2020 in
Police Station- Malwan, District- Fatehpur.

19. From the perusal of evidence of
P.W.1 Balwant Singh, it is conspicuous that
on 17.03.2021, his examination-in-chief
was recorded and on 17.11.2021, his crossexamination was done by the defense.

20. Considering the above mentioned
facts and circumstances of the case in the
light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, it appears that it is essential in
the
interest
of
justice
that
the
revisionist/defence
is
granted
an
opportunity on heavy costs to crossexamine P.W.1 Balwant Singh on the point
of N.C.R. registered by the revisionist and
the injuries received by Raj Kumar and
Gore Lal.

21. P.W.1 Balwant Singh has not
been examined on the point of N.C.R.
registered by Shiv Mohan regarding the
incident. He has also not been crossexamined about the injuries allegedly
received by Raj Kumar and Gore Lal in the
incident.

22. From the above discussion of the
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the considered view that it is essential in
the
interest
of
justice
that
the
revisionist/defence
is
granted
one
opportunity to cross-examine at costs of
Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the witness,
Balwant Singh

23. On production of this order,
the trial court shall get Rs.10,000/-
deposited by the revisionists and then fix a
date for cross-examination of P.W.1
Balwant Singh. On that date, the defense
shall cross-examine P.W.1 Balwant Singh
on the matter relating to N.C.R. registered
by Shiv Mohan and the injuries received
his sons, Raj Kumar and Gore Lal. The
defense
shall
conclude
the
crossexamination on the same day and they shall
not be granted adjournment for further
cross-examination of P.W.1 Balwant Singh.
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. From the above discussion, I am
of the opinion that the trial court should
have allowed the application u/s 311
Cr.P.C. subject to payment of heavy cost.
The trial court has committed illegality in
rejecting the aforesaid application.

25.

The
criminal
revision
is
accordingly allowed subject to aforesaid
conditions regarding payment of cost and
completion of cross-examination of P.W.1
Balwant Singh on the same date.

26. The copy of the judgement be
forthwith sent to the trial court for
compliance.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 926
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3560 of 2023

Purushottam Das & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ray Sahab Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Umesh Chandra Prajapati

Criminal Law - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section
125
-
Against
maintenance
allowance - In impugned order, trial court
noted that revisionist admitted in his
written St.ment that opposite party no.2,
as his wife and Master Harshit as their
son, from their wedlock and residing with
her parents for last two years, who bear
their
maintenance
and
educational
expenses - Trial court further observed
that revisionist no. 1, employed as Field
Officer in a nationalized bank, draws a
gross monthly salary of Rs.97,227.45/-,
and from that monthly salary, house rent
recovery, furniture recovery, housing loan,
car loan, income tax and contributory
pension fund is deducted - It is well
settled that only statutory deductions and
income tax can be considered while
computing net salary of Revisionist no. 1,
other deductions cannot be deducted from
gross salary - Considering maintenance of
opposite
party
no.2
and
her
son's
educational expenses, trial court rightly
awarded interim maintenance allowance
of Rs.3,000/- pm to opposite party no.2
and Rs.2,000/- pm to her minor son -
Thus, no illegality in impugned order,
criminal revision dismissed. (Para 20, 21)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ajay Kumar Vs Lata Alias Sharuti & ors.,
(2019) 15 SCC 352

2. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs Atif Iqbal
Mansoori & anr., (2014) 10 SCC 736, (Paras 23
to 31)

3. Rajat Johar Vs Divya Johar, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 11790, (Paras 21, 22)

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

Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned
counsel for the revisionists and Sri Umesh
Chandra Prajapati, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2.

2. The instant criminal revision
has been instituted against the impugned
judgment and order dated 07.06.2023
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No. 1, Jhansi, in Criminal Appeal
No2. 98 of 2022 (Smt. Bharti Devi Vs.
State of U.P. and others) filed under
Section 29 of the Protection of Women