# Smt. Kavita Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Ors. 420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 419
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-06
- **Case number:** Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 672 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kavita-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-ors-420-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-52995
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
UP
Police
Radio
Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 - Part IV
- Reg. 8 (c) - Post of Operators/ Head
Operator (Mechanical) - Qualification -
Advertisement
require
three
years
Diploma - Petitioners, having Bachelor
Degree, claim themselves eligible as it is a
higher qualification - Permissibility -
Held, any recruitment to public posts has
to be carried out strictly in accordance
with the provisions contained in the
Recruitment Rules -

## Text

2 All. Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
419

15. Learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 further submitted that respondent No.2
was compelled to take shelter at her parental
place due to maltreatment, harassment and
torture given to her by the revisionist. She is a
qualified lady, but she is not working women,
she is not having any independent source of
income and she had dependent on her parents
for her necessary expenses. The revisionist
being husband of the respondent No.2 is under
obligation to maintain her, but he has neglected
to pay maintenance to her, which resulted in
filing of present petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C. before the Hon'ble Court.

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey
Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee
Nandy AIR (2017) SC 2383 placing reliance on
a earlier judgment in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar
vs. Raj Kumari and Anr. (1970) 3 SCC 129, in
this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net
salary would be just and proper to be awarded as
maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount
of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must
be befitting the status of the parties and the
capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance.
Maintenance is always dependent on the factual
situation of the case and the court would be
justified in moulding the claim for maintenance
passed on various factors. Therefore, without
disturbing the broad findings of fact given by
learned court below, the amount of maintenance
awarded to the applicant is being modified as
below.

17. Considering the rival submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be
held that due to non-compliance of mandatory
directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra)
before the court below, the impugned judgment
and gets vitiated under law. This court in
revisional stage has assured compliance of
mandatory directions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another
(supra) to avoid any further delay in final
disposal of the matter. The purpose of filing
affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities is
to clarify the stand of the parties in maintenance
case, their assets, liabilities and economic
condition show that the court may be in a
position to out the truth and come to just
decision in the case.

18. After giving a thoughtful consideration
on submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and on meticulous examination material
available on record, I find no illegality,
irregularity or perversity in the impugned
judgment and order passed by learned court
below, the revision is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed.

19. However, revisionist is given a leverage
to pay the arrear of maintenance in installments,
it is directed that the arrear of maintenance from
date of filing of application to date of impugned
judgment will be paid in three monthly
installments, and first installment will be payable
on 27.02.2025 and other two installments will be
payable in subsequent months.

20. The revisionist will pay and continue
to pay the post judgment maintenance at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- per month as directed in the
impugned order on regular basis.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 419
ORIGINALJURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 672 of 2024

Smt. Kavita Chaudhary ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, Nasiruzzaman

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Aditya Gupta, G.A.

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 407- Witness
Protection Scheme,2018-Transfer application
on the ground that respondents are practicing
Advocates and the applicant being a poor widow
is under their threat perception and is unable to
procure any competent Lawyer to contest her
case---Directions issued that in case, the
applicant/first informant or any of the witnesses
approaches the authorities concerned by moving
an application seeking protection under the
Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in the light of
directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mahendra Chawla & ors.Vs
U.O.I.& ors., (2019) 14 SCC 615 for a free and
fair trial, the authorities concerned shall ensure
that the adequate security be provided to the
applicant and the witnesses till the conclusion of
the trial. (Para 7) (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

Mahendra Chawla & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.(2019)
14 SCC 615

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Gopal
Chaturvedi,
learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted by Sri Aditya Gupta, learned
counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4
and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

2. The present application under
section 407 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant seeking transfer of Sessions Trial
No. 30 of 2024 (State vs. Nitin Dagar and
others) in Case Crime No.547 of 2023,
under Sections 302/34, 120B/302 IPC and
Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, P.S. Sihani
Gate, District Ghaziabad pending in the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.13, Ghaziabad to be transferred to any
other competent Court at Aligarh mainly on
the ground that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are
the practicing Advocates and the applicant
being a poor widow is under their threat
perception and is unable to procure any
competent Lawyer to contest her case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has contended that threats have been
extended by the opposite party no. 2 Nitin
Dagar from the jail whereas the coaccused opposite party no.3 Amit Dagar
and opposite party no. 4 Anuj @ Palu
have extended threats from outside the
jail. Amit Dagar and Nitin Dagar are the
practicing Advocates at Ghaziabad and
due to which the applicant is not able to
engage a competent Advocate. Further, it
has been asserted that the applicant being
a poor widow, is staying at Aligarh
alongwith her father Vijay Singh and her
brother Dinesh Singh, who is an eye
witness account in the said Sessions
Trial. The applicant is apprehensive for
their life and limb and has even
approached the police authorities to
provide
them
the
security
guards.

4. In this regard, a report was sought
on 17.01.2025 from the Presiding Officer
concerned.

5. Pursuant to the same, the report of
the concerned Presiding Officer dated
30.01.2025 endorsed by District Judge,
Ghaziabad has been received, reporting that
amongst the three named accused, two of
them are the officiating members of the
Bar. It has further been informed that
adequate security was provided to the
applicant Smt. Kavita Chaudhary who
already has been examined as P.W.1 and
2 All. Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
421
have further ensured to provide security to
the witnesses during the recording of their
evidence.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party nos.2 to 4 has opposed the
aforesaid prayer but agreed to cooperate in
the trial proceedings.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the
parties and after taking into consideration the
entire facts and circumstances, it transpires
that the trial is at the stage of evidence and
the
applicant/informant
was
provided
adequate security at the time of the recording
of the evidence as PW-1 and further
considering the fact that the applicant has not
brought on record any real apprehension of
threat from the respondents accused but
looking to the convenience of the parties and
in the interest of justice, it is hereby provided
that in case, the applicant/first informant or
any of the witnesses approaches the
authorities
concerned
by
moving
an
application seeking protection under the
Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in the
light of directions given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra
Chawla and others vs. Union of India and
others, (2019) 14 SCC 615 for a free and fair
trial, the authorities concerned shall ensure
that the adequate security be provided to the
applicant and the witnesses till the conclusion
of the trial.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the
present application stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 421
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 70 of 2025

Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mohd. Mansoor, Mohammad Danish

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ripu Daman Shahi

A.
Service
Law
-
UP
Police
Radio
Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 - Part IV
- Reg. 8 (c) - Post of Operators/ Head
Operator (Mechanical) - Qualification -
Advertisement
require
three
years
Diploma - Petitioners, having Bachelor
Degree, claim themselves eligible as it is a
higher qualification - Permissibility -
Held, any recruitment to public posts has
to be carried out strictly in accordance
with the provisions contained in the
Recruitment Rules - A Bachelor Degree
are not eligible for seeking appointment in
furtherance of the recruitment notification
dated 06.01.2022. (Para 6, 19 and 35)

B.
Service
Law
-
Candidature
-
Cancellation - False information given
during submission of the Application Form
- Effect - Held, the petitioners applied for
selection to the posts in question on their
own
by
submitting
false
information
regarding
their
eligibility
qualification
which renders their candidature liable to
be canceled. (Para 25)

C. Service Law - Qualification - Issue
regarding equivalence - Competence to
decide it - Equivalence of qualification for
the purpose of appointment to public
posts can be decided by the employer
alone. The employer in the present case is
the St. Government - The Recruitment
Board has no authority to take any
decision
regarding
equivalence
of
qualifications. (Para 21 and 39)