# Shyam Sundar Yadav Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 665
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1410 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shyam-sundar-yadav-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47250
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
125
-
Provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are
beneficial provisions which are enacted
to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife
and provide some succour to them, who
are entitled to get the maintenance
which has been wrongly denied.(Para -
6)

Judgement and order passed by Family Court
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - opposite party
no.2 (wife) awarded Rs.3500/-per month as
maintenance allowance - Criminal revision by
revisionist.

HELD:- The amount fixed for maintenance
was Rs. 3500/- for the opposite party no. 2
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which in the present days of high price rise
cannot be said to be either excessive or
disproportionate . The impugned order does
not require any interference. There is no
illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned order and also there seems to be
no abuse of court's process. (Para - 6,7)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

7 All. Shyam Sundar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
665

"4. The said Act is a taxing
statute and a taxing statute must be
interpreted as it reads, with no additions
and no subtractions, on the ground of
legislative intendment or otherwise."

47. In view of the above noted legal
position, any interpretation or meaning
given to the word "business" in the literal
parlance cannot be read into the Income
Tax Act as the word "business" has been
defined in the Act itself. The Court has to
read the statute namely the Income Tax Act
to find out as to whether the activity of the
assessee in maintaining the hostel would be
exempted under Section 11(1) of the Act
and whether the provisions of Section
11(4A) would be attracted in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

48. Having held that the activity of
running the hostel is not a separate business
activity and surplus income from the hostel
fee cannot be treated as profit and gains of
a separate business or commercial activity
of the trust, it is held that the exemption
under Section 11(1) of the Act cannot be
disallowed to the assessee.

49. In the result, the substantial
question of law is answered in favour of the
assessee.

50. The assessment order dated
12.03.2013 passed by the Additional
Commissioner,
Income
Tax
Range-1
Ghaziabad and the orders of affirmation of
the same in the appeals dismissed by
CIT(A) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
are, therefore, liable to be set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the Assessing
Officer with the direction to examine the
same afresh in the light of the observations
made above, treating the hostel fee
income, subservient to the main object of
the education and not as a business income
but income derived from the charitable
activity of education.

51. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
----------
(2021)07ILR A665
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1410 of 2021

Shyam Sundar Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Sri Abhai
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
125
-
Provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are
beneficial provisions which are enacted
to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife
and provide some succour to them, who
are entitled to get the maintenance
which has been wrongly denied.(Para -
6)

Judgement and order passed by Family Court
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - opposite party
no.2 (wife) awarded Rs.3500/-per month as
maintenance allowance - Criminal revision by
revisionist.

HELD:- The amount fixed for maintenance
was Rs. 3500/- for the opposite party no. 2
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which in the present days of high price rise
cannot be said to be either excessive or
disproportionate . The impugned order does
not require any interference. There is no
illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned order and also there seems to be
no abuse of court's process. (Para - 6,7)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhai Kumar Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist
through
video
conferencing,
learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed by the revisionist against the
impugned judgement and order dated
3.3.2021 passed by Additional Principal
Judge IInd, Family Court Jaunpur in Case
No.628 of 2014, under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. by which opposite party no.2 was
awarded
Rs.3500/-per
month
as
maintenance allowance.

3. Submission made by the counsel
for the revisionist is that the revisionist is
a very poor person having no source of
income and he has been unable to pay Rs.
3500/- per month. He further submitted
that the court below has not considered
that the opposite party no.2 (wife) is
living separately from the revisionist
without any reasonable reason so she is
not liable to get any maintenance from
the
revisionist.
After
recording
the
statements of the contesting parties,
without
considering
the
facts
and
evidence
on
record
allowed
the
application of opposite party no.2 and
awarded her Rs. 3500/- per month as
maintenance allowance.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. stated
that the court below passed the impugned
order after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the
statements of the revisionist and opposite
party no.2, in such circumstances to meet
the ends of justice, the impugned order
does not require any interference. There
is
no
illegality,
impropriety
and
incorrectness in the impugned order and
also there seems to be no abuse of court's
process.

5. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

6. Counsel for the revisionist has
not been able to point out any such
illegality or impropriety or incorrectness
in the impugned order which may
persuade this Court to interfere in the
same. The amount fixed for maintenance
was Rs. 3500/- for the opposite party no.
2 which in the present days of high price
rise cannot be said to be either excessive
or disproportionate. The provisions of
Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial
provisions which are enacted to stop the
vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide
some succour to them, who are entitled to
get the maintenance which has been
wrongly denied. The fact that the
revisionist is the husband of opposite
party no.2, has not been denied.

7. In such circumstances to meet the
ends of justice, the impugned order does
not require any interference. There is no
illegality, impropriety and incorrectness
in the impugned order and also there
seems to be no abuse of court's process.

8. In view of the above, the revision
lacks merit and stands dismissed.
----------
7 All. Tejal Uppal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
(2021)07ILR A667
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY YADAV, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 9534 of 2021

Tejal Uppal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Land acquisition - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1), 11(a),
17, 48; Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013: Section 24(2) - In case a person has
been
tendered
the
compensation
as
provided u/s 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is
not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed u/s 24(2) due to non-payment
or non-deposit of compensation in Court.
Once award has been passed on taking
possession u/s 16 of the Act of 1894, the land
vests in State, there is no divesting provided u/s
24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession
has been taken there is no lapse u/s 24(2).
(Para 14)

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not
give rise to new cause of action to
question
the
legality
of
concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. S. 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014.
(Para 14)

In the present case, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 12.11.2020 on the
ground that the abadi land of the petitioner
has been acquired by invoking the provisions of
S. 17. The provision of S. 11(a) of Act of 1894
has not been followed, as such the acquisition
proceedings lapsed and the order dated
12.11.2020 is bad in eye of law and the
petitioner is entitled for return of her land. (Para
10)

B. Filing of successive Writ Petitions on
the same ground with identical relief is
nothing but an abuse of process of law.
A previous writ petition challenging the
impugned order (dated 12.11.2020) was
dismissed as withdrawn without granting any
liberty to the petitioner. Moreover, two other
petitions, one challenging the acquisition on
the same grounds and other praying for the
same relief have also been dismissed vide
orders dated 31.05.2016 and 10.12.2019
respectively. (Para 11)

C. A clear finding has been recorded by
the Authority in the impugned order that
the possession of the land has been taken
and transferred to the Noida Development
Authority on 03.09.2003. The award was
made
on
29.01.2010.
The
amount
of
compensation has been deposited in the Court
by challan on 14.2.2017, thus the entire
proceedings has been concluded. It is further
recorded in the impugned order that the Noida
Development Authority has informed to the
State Government that the part of the land is
under road in Sector 96, 97 & 98 of Noida. (Para
12)

D. The findings recorded in the order
dated
12.11.2020
have
not
been
challenged in the writ petition rather the
petitioner has admitted that he had been
dispossessed in the year 2003 by demolishing
the construction over the land in dispute. (Para
13)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar
Lal Yadav, (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Para 14)