# Smt. Priyanka Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 28
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-priyanka-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49563
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 125 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506,
406 & 452 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 7 - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article
15(3)
-
Criminal
Revision
-
challenging the dismissal order of Petition u/s
125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court - marriage was
solemnized in 2014 - but she was sent off to
her matrimonial place subjected to dowry
demands, domestic violence, and eventual
abandonment - determination of issues farmed
by the family court - The trial court rejected
her plea, citing insufficient proof of marriage,
including the
lack
of evidence
for the
mandatory Hindu ritual of "Saptapadi" -
Revision - Court finds that, proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and
require a lower standard of proof for marriage
than regular matrimonial disputes - held that,
strict technicalities should not defeat the
objective of maintenance laws aimed at
preventing destitution - as well as Section 125
Cr.P.C. is a social legislation to make provision
for maintenance of wife, child and old parents
to avoid vagrancy and provide sustenance to
these
vulnerable
sections
-
hence,
the
impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the family court for
reconsideration, allowing the summoning of
additional witnesses and evidence to establish
the petitioner's claims - revision stands
allowed. (Para - 20, 24, 25)

Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order which may persuade this
Court to interfere in the same. 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.

10. In view of the above, this revision
lacks merit and stands dismissed.

11. No order as to costs.

12. Copy of this judgment be sent to
the court below for its compliance.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 28
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2022

Smt. Priyanka Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Indra Pratap Singh, Utkarsh Kumar

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 125 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506,
406 & 452 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 7 - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article
15(3)
-
Criminal
Revision
-
challenging the dismissal order of Petition u/s
125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court - marriage was
solemnized in 2014 - but she was sent off to
her matrimonial place subjected to dowry
demands, domestic violence, and eventual
abandonment - determination of issues farmed
by the family court - The trial court rejected
her plea, citing insufficient proof of marriage,
including the
lack
of evidence
for the
mandatory Hindu ritual of "Saptapadi" -
Revision - Court finds that, proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and
require a lower standard of proof for marriage
than regular matrimonial disputes - held that,
strict technicalities should not defeat the
objective of maintenance laws aimed at
preventing destitution - as well as Section 125
Cr.P.C. is a social legislation to make provision
for maintenance of wife, child and old parents
to avoid vagrancy and provide sustenance to
these
vulnerable
sections
-
hence,
the
impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the family court for
reconsideration, allowing the summoning of
additional witnesses and evidence to establish
the petitioner's claims - revision stands
allowed. (Para - 20, 24, 25)

Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kamala Vs M.R. Mohan Kumar 2018 SCC
Online SC 2121 decided on 24.10.2018,

2. Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava
Dixit & anr.1999(7) SCC 675,

3. Irshad Ali Vs St. of U.P. & anr.- Criminal
Appeal No.1555 of 2020,

4. Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs Pyla Suri
Demudu & anr. 2011(12) SCC 189,

5. Sumitra Devi Vs Bhikan Choudhary 1985 (1)
SCC 637,

6. Lakshmi Devi Vs Satyanarayan & ors. -
Criminal Appeal No.314 of 1981,

7. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & anr. Vs St. Of
Maharashtra & anr.AIR (2001) SC 1108.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)
12 All. Smt. Priyanka Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29

1. By means of the present Criminal
Revision, the revisionist has assailed the
judgment and order dated 23.06.2022
passed by learned Additional Principal
Judge, Court No.1, Family Court, Lucknow
in Criminal Case No.242 of 2016, under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., Priyanka Singh Vs.
Amar
Nath
Kushwaha,
whereby
the
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by
applicant
Priyanka
Singh
(present
revisionist) has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent and perused the material
available on record.

3. The factual matrix of the case in
brief are that petitioner instituted a case
under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court
below against her husband (respondent
No.2 at present) with a prayer to be granted
Rs.14,000/- as maintenance from her
estranged husband. The petitioner has
averred that her marriage with opposite
party was solemnized on 07.03.2016, in
which her father spent around Rs.15 lakh
towards stridhan, gift, dowry and cash. The
spouse initially cohabited together in
discharge of their matrimonial obligations,
but no child could be begotten. The
marriage of her husband was initially
settled with her elder sister Preeti Singh,
but just two days prior to schedule
marriage;
her
husband
display
unwillingness to marry Preeti Singh, which
resulted in much embarrassment to the
family of the petitioner, as her parents had
already spent a huge amount towards
preparation and organising pre-marriage
ceremony. The petitioner agreed to marry
with opposite party to avoid social disgrace
to her family, and in this way the marriage
was solemnized between petitioner and
opposite
party
on
07.03.2014.
The
petitioner was sent off to her matrimonial
place after marriage, the behaviour of her
husband and in-laws was initially normal
for two-three days, but thereafter they
started demanding Rs.5 lakh as dowry and
began to pressurize her to bring the amount
from her parents. As she expressed her
inability to bring this amount from her
parents, the opposite party and his family
members got infuriated and gave her
beating by kicks and fits. She came back to
her parental place on 15.03.2014, on
Chowth Ceremony and narrated these
things to her parents, however they
consoled her and convinced her that the
situation will improve in course of time,
and persuaded her for Vidai. She again
proceeded to her matrimonial place on
23.03.2014, but the behaviour of opposite
party and her family members remained
unchanged without any improvement. On
06.04.2014 husband tried to get her killed
by getting her fell down from motorbike in
which she suffered grievous injuries, they
even hurled imputation of characterlessness
on her and got her pregnancy test done
without any rhyme and reason, they got her
signatures on many blank papers and
prepared a fake suicide note also. When the
things
became
unbearable
due
to
continuous harassment and torture meted
out to them, she called her father on
20.04.2014 and requested the opposite
party to permit her to leave his place, but
her husband and in-laws again misbehaved
with her and gave her beatings, they
expelled her from their house after
retaining her stridhan, mobile and academic
papers. Her father died on 29.09.2014 and
taking the advantage of this unfortunate
incident, the opposite party got his
remarriage settled at somewhere else.

4. On 20.12.2015 at around midnight
her husband and his elder brother barged
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
into parental house of the petitioner and
tried to kidnap her by giving her beatings.
However the landlord intervened and the
opposite party and his associates escaped
from the place. After threatening her she
lodged an FIR in Case Crime No.8 of 2016,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506,
406,452 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, at Police Station Mahila
Thana, Lucknow in which police has
submitted
a
chargesheet
against
the
opposite party and his family members
after investigation which is pending before
the court. The writ petition has been filed
by the accused persons in that case before
the Lucknow Bench of High Court against
that case in which applicant and her sister
Preeti Singh are impleaded as respondent
Nos. 3 and 4. The opposite parties were
summoned by court below and opposite
party No.1 filed his written objection A14
with averments that this is not disclosed
that how the marriage of the petitioner and
opposite party were solemnized, in fact the
parties were never married.

5. According to written objection A14
the marriage of opposite party was infact
settled with Preeti Singh, the elder sister of
the applicant on 07.03.2014, according to
Hindu Rites and Rituals without any dowry.
However Preeti Singh was in love affairs
with Jagroop the brother-in-law of her elder
sister Mamta Kushwaha, prior to her
marriage with opposite party and she
continued her affairs with previous lovers,
even after her marriage with the opposite
party and she eloped with her ex-lover
Jagroop Kushwaha after few days of
marriage and never came back to her
matrimonial place, and presently she is
residing with said Jagroop Kushwaha as his
wife. No maintenance petition has been
filed by said Preeti Singh against the
opposite party. The present petition is a
result of conspiracy hatched between the
petitioner and her elder sister Preeti Singh
with a view to blackmail the opposite party.

6. The learned court below framed as
many as five points of determination, in
which first point was "whether the
applicant Priyanka Singh is legally wedded
wife of opposite party". Learned court
below after considering the pleadings and
evidence
adduced
the
applicant
and
opposite parties, and placing reliance on
Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, and some
case laws cited in impugned judgment
reached to the conclusion that matrimonial
relationship of the parties is not established
by evidence on record. The petitioner has
failed to prove the fact that her marriage
with
opposite
party
was
solemnized
according to hindu rituals of "Saptapadi (7
steps) around the sacred fire" as provided
under Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act.

7. Learned trial court has observed
that the documents filed by the applicant in
support of claim of her marriage with
opposite party are not duly proved, and
some documents are of doubtful credence.
Learned trial court has also observed that as
marriage of the opposite party with
applicant is not duly proved, the applicant
is not entitled to receive any maintenance
from the opposite party, and on the basis of
the finding on point of determination
number one the petition filed by the
applicant has been dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the learned court below has
rejected
the
petition
of
the
revisionist/applicant mainly on the ground
that performance of the marriage of
petitioner and opposite party has not been
proved, as there is no photograph of
evidence in support of the fact that the
12 All. Smt. Priyanka Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
31
ritual of "Saptapadi" was performed at the
time of their arrange marriage. In fact
original CD which contains the marriage
ceremony between the parties was a
custody of opposite party No.2, who has
got its material part deleted, for which the
revisionist is not at fault. The learned court
below has ignored the evidence of the
revisionist
and
her
family
members
adduced during hearing of the case and
rejected her petition by taking hyper
technical approach which is not permitted
under law.

9. The maintenance proceeding under
section
125
Cr.P.C.
are
summary
proceedings, with a view to provide
maintenance to a wife who is unable to
maintain herself, and has been neglected by
her husband having sufficient means to
maintain her. The provisions is beneficial
legislation and it must be interpreted and
applied to receive the object under line
therein. He next submitted that the
learned court below has observed in the
impugned judgment that CD filed by
the applicant reveals the performance of
ceremony of Jaimal between petitioner
and opposite party, even then the court
has disbelieved the factum of their
marriage and wrongly observed that on
account of difference in date shown in
receipt, and date of marriage if cannot
be treated as proof. The revisionist is
living in utter scarcity of money to
maintain herself as well as her minor
son. The revisionist was deserted by her
husband
after
subjecting
her
to
matrimonial cruelty and torture, and the
court below has ignored the pleadings
and evidence of the petitioner on this
point without sufficient reason. The
impugned order is sustainable and
deserve to be set aside.

10. Per contra learned A.G.A.
submitted that the court below has recorded
the finding of fact that the marriage of the
petitioner with opposite party is not proved
in accordance with statutory provisions of
Hindu Marriage Act. The documents filed
by her in support of her claim were rightly
dealt with by the court below citing
sufficient reasons. The judgment and order
is well reasoned, and in accordance with
material on record as well as law therein.

11. From perusal of the impugned
judgment, it appears that the learned court
below has observed therein while dealing
with the point of determination No.1 that
both
the
parties
have
filed
certain
documents in support of their respective
claim, the stand regarding existence of
marital relationship between them. The
petitioner has claimed to be legally wedded
wife of the opposite party, whereas the
opposite has refuted this claim and has
taken stand that the marriage of opposite
party was never solemnized with the
petitioner. He has taken a stand that his
marriage was in fact solemnized on
07.03.2014 with Preeti Singh, her elder
sister of the applicant who stayed with him
for some time after marriage, when she was
sent off to her parental place her
matrimonial home. After sometime of
marriage she eloped with her exlover
Jagroop Kushwaha and never came back to
the opposite party, her legally wedded
husband. This fact is admitted by the
petitioner that marriage of the opposite
party was initially settled with her elder
sister, which was scheduled to be held on
07.03.2014, but has stated that due to
refusal of opposite party to marry her sister
she consented to get married with him to
avoid social ignominy and to save the
reputation of her family. Her marriage with
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposite
party
was
solemnized
on
07.03.2014 itself.

12. Learned court below has also
observed that applicant in her examination
in chief has stated that the applicant has
filed a CD, photograph and certificate of
Gram Pradhan in support of her stand that
marital relationship established between
her and opposite party. She has also stated
in her evidence that she was subjected to
harassment by her husband and in-laws due
to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of
Rs.5 Lakh. She was forced to see the
obscene
pictures
and
read
obscene
literature, she was made to signature on
blank papers and some other papers by her
husband. She was compelled to leave her
matrimonial place on 20.04.2014, being
victim of cruelty. Whereas opposite party
has stated that her marriage with Preeti
Singh elder sister of the applicant is still
subsisting who is living with her lover
Jagroop Kushwaha as his wife. The
applicant Priyanka Singh has married with
Shailendra Kushwaha son of Shobhit
Kushwaha, resident of Nai Duniya Chausa,
Police Station Vidisha District Banda after
5-6 months of marriage of his sister Preeti
Singh with opposite party. The photographs
and CD of marriage filed by the applicant
are up to the stage of Jaimal. The DVD has
been prepared by Anamika Studio and
receipt thereof has been filed, no mixing or
editing is done in DVD.

13. As per statement of the applicant
in her cross-examination, she has stated
that in DVD the programme from Tilak to
Jaimal are recorded. The Tilak ceremony
was in respect of her sister Preeti Singh and
Amarnath. However in this CD the filling
of vermilion on her head and garlanding
mangalsutra on her neck are not recorded,
she provided the CD to Investigating
Officer. She admitted that she is not having
any proof that Amar Nath had expressed his
willingness to marry her sister Preeti Singh.

14. Learned court below has cited the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Curt in
Criminal Appeal No.314 of 1981 (Lakshmi
Devi Vs. Satyanarayan and others) and in
Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr vs
State Of Maharashtra & Anr AIR (2001)
SC 1108, in which it is held that for proof
of
Hindu
Marriage
performance
of
Saptapadi
7
Sacred
steps
must
be
established.

15. Learned court below has also
observed that maintenance can only be
claimed by a legally wedded wife under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. However Apex Court
in Sumitra Devi vs Bhikan Choudhary
S1985 (1) SCC 637 clarified that rituals of
Saptapadi
is
traditional
ritual
of
performance of the Hindu Marriage.
However, if custom or tradition suggests
that performance of Saptapadi is not
necessary in that case the Hindu Marriage
may be established even in absence of
performance Saptapadi.

16. Learned court below has observed
that PW1 Priyanka Singh has stated in her
cross-examination that she never met
Shailendra Singh, she did not know
Shivdutta Kushwaha, she is not aware that
Shailendra Singh had contest the election
of Gram Pradhan or not. The applicant has
admitted her signature on affidavit filed
before District Magistrate, even then she
has stated that she had signed on blank
paper and she did not read the same. The
applicant is a graduate lady and such
statement by her on this score that she did
not read this contents must be accepted as
having no force. If she was not acquainted
with Shailendra Kushwaha how she could
12 All. Smt. Priyanka Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
33
file a number of papers involving him. She
failed to file negatives of the photographs
C-20/21 relied by her. The receipt C-20/21
is disbelieved by the court below, but the
grounds of difference of dates between date
of marriage and date of receipt. On this
count, the court below has observed that
due to difference in date it cannot be held
that this receipt is in respect CD made on
occasion of her marriage.

17. In inquiry report filed by the
police on complaint made by the applicant
before the State Commission of Human
Rights it is stated that Preeti Singh had
refused to marry Amar Nath, on arrival of
the grooms party, in that situation the
emphasis laid by the court below on stand
of the petitioner that in her petition she
stated that Amar Nath himself expressed
his unwillingness to marry Preeti Singh two
days prior to schedule date of marriage is
not of much significance.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla
Suri Demudu & Anr 2011(12) SCC 189
held as under:-

"20. We may further take note of
an important legal aspect as laid down by
the Supreme Court in the matter of Jamuna
Bai vs. Anant Rai, that the nature of the
proof
of
marriage
required
for
a
proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. need
not be so strong or conclusive as in a
criminal 7 AIR 1988 SC 793 (paras 4, 5
and 8) proceeding for an offence under
Section 494 IPC since, the jurisdiction of
the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
being preventive in nature, the Magistrate
cannot
usurp
the
jurisdiction
in
matrimonial dispute possessed by the civil
court. The object of the section being to
afford
a
swift
remedy,
and
the
determination by the Magistrate as to the
status of the parties being subject to a final
determination of the civil court, when the
husband denies that the applicant is not his
wife, all that the Magistrate has to find, in
a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is
whether
there
was
some
marriage
ceremony between the parties, whether they
have lived as husband and wife in the eyes
of their neighbours, whether children were
borne out of the union.

21. It was still further laid down
in the case of Sethu Rathinam vs. Barbara
that if there was affirmative evidence on the
aforesaid points, the Magistrate would not
enter into complicated questions of law as
to the validity of the marriage according to
the sacrament element or personal law and
the
like,
which
are
questions
for
determination by 8 (1970) 1 SCWR 589 the
civil court. If the evidence led in a
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
raises a presumption that the applicant was
the wife of the respondent, it would be
sufficient for the Magistrate to pass an
order granting maintenance under the
proceeding. But if the husband wishes to
impeach the validity of the marriage, he
will have to bring a declaratory suit in the
civil court where the whole questions may
be gone into wherein he can contend that
the marriage was not a valid marriage or
was a fraud or coercion practiced upon
him.

22. Fortifying this view, it was
further laid down by the Supreme Court in
the matter of Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan also,
that in a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
the Magistrate has to take prima facie view
of the matter and it is not necessary for the
Magistrate to go into matrimonial disparity
between the parties in detail in order to
deny maintenance to the claimant wife.
Section 125, Cr.P.C. proceeds on de facto
marriage and not marriage de jure. Thus,
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
validity of the marriage will not be a
ground for refusal of maintenance if other
requirements of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are
fulfilled."

19. This Court in a judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 2020 Irshad
Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another held as
under:-

"8. It is well settled that for the
purposes of a proceeding under Section
125 Cr.P.C., the factum of marriage has to
be prima facie considered. If there is prima
facie material on record to suggest that the
parties have married or are having
relationship in the nature of marriage, the
court can presume in favour of the woman
claiming maintenance. Since the provision
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of
social justice and has been enacted to
protect women, children or parents and the
materials on record suggest two views, then
the view in favour of women should be
adopted. An order passed in an application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally
determine the rights and obligations of the
parties and the said section is enacted with
a view to provide a summary remedy for
providing maintenance to a wife, children
and parents. In case of S. Sethurathiuam
Pillai Vs. Barbara it was observed that
maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C.
1898 (similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.)
cannot be denied where there was some
evidence on which conclusion for grant of
maintenance could be reached. It was held
that order passed under Section 488 is a
summary order which does not finally
determine the rights and obligations of the
parties; the decision of the criminal court
that there was a valid marriage between the
parties will not operate as decisive in any
civil proceeding between the parties. In a
proceeding for maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate or Judge of the
Family Court has to be prima facie
satisfied about the marital status of the
parties, as a decision under Section 125
Cr.P.C. is tentative in nature, subject to the
decision in any civil proceeding, as has
been held in Santosh Vs. Naresh Pal (1998)
8 Supreme Court Cases 447. The court is
expected to pass appropriate order after
being prima facie satisfied about the
marital status of the parties. Even the
definition of wife provided in Explanation
(b) to Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C is inclusive,
which reads as follows:

"125(1)(b) - ,,Wife‟ includes a
woman who has been divorced by or has
obtained a divorce from, her husband and
has not remarried"

The above inclusive definition of
wife suggests that a divorced woman who
cannot be technically called a wife has
been treated as wife for the purposes of
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

9. The Apex Court in the case of
Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan (1999) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 326 held that in a case under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to
take prima facie view of the matter and it is
not necessary for the Magistrate to go into
matrimonial dispute between the parties in
detail in order to deny maintenance to the
claimant wife. Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeds
on de facto marriage and not marriage de
jure. Thus, validity of the marriage will not
be a ground for refusal of maintenance if
other requirements of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
are fulfilled.

20. On the basis of foregoing
discussions and case laws cited above in
light of submissions of learned counsels
appearing for the parties I am of the
considered opinion that the learned court
below
has
rejected
the
claim
of
maintenance made by the revisionist in her
12 All. Smt. Priyanka Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
35
application for maintenance led before the
court below under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
taking hyper technical approach that
marriage of the petitioner with opposite
party has not been duly proved. The
proceedings of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are
of summary nature, this is a social
legislation
to
make
provision
for
maintenance of wife, child and old
parents to avoid vagrancy and provide
sustenance to these vulnerable sections.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut
Prava Dixit And Another 1999(7) SCC
675
held
that
unlike
matrimonial
proceedings
were
strict
proof
of
marriage is essential. In proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. such strict
standard proof is not necessary as is
summary in nature meant to prevent
vagrancy. The Hon'ble Apex Court also
observed in that case that the High Court
being regional court has no power of
reassigning the evidence and substitute
his views on finding of facts.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar 2018
SCC Online SC 2121 decided on
24.10.2018 held that when the parties
live together as husband and wife, there
is a presumption that they are legally
married couple for claim of maintenance
of wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
do not require strict standard proof of
marriage.

23. Proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. are primarily civil in nature, are
summary
proceedings
and
unlike
criminal proceedings strict rules, rules of
evidence are not applied by the courts in
summary proceedings. The object behind
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the
wife, minor child and old parents do not
suffer in destitution. This provision is a
measure of social justice and specially
enacted to protect women, children and
old
parents
and
falls
within
the
constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of a
constitution which enables the State to
make special provision for women and
children herein.

24. In the present case the learned
court below has held in impugned
judgment that on the basis of evidence
on record the marriage of petitioner with
opposite party is not established and
with this finding the petition has been
dismissed. The court while giving above
finding
has
taken
hyper
technical
approach in assessment of evidence,
which is not required in a summary
proceedings like that under Section 125
Cr.P.C.. The impugned judgment and
order is not sustainable with aforesaid
reasons and judicial authority cited
above as same is vitiated by illegality
and irregularity.

25. The revision stands allowed.
The impugned judgment and order
passed by the Court below is set-aside
and the matter is remanded to court
below with direction to decide the
maintenance
petition
afresh
in
accordance with law in light of the
observations of this Court in this
judgment. The court below will be at
liberty to summon any other witness
like Preeti Singh sister of the revisionist
or any other important witness or
summon any documents to arrive at the
truth, if it considers fit, either on its
own motion or on an application of any
of the parties.
----------
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 12 ILRA 36
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Appeal U/S 37 OF Arbitration And Conciliation
Act 1996 Defective No. 588 of 2023

Mathura
Vrindavan
Development
Authority ...Appellant
Versus
M/s Agarwal Construction Company
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Praveen Kumar Singh

Limitation Act, 1963 - Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34 & 37 -
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section
13(1-A) - Limitation for filing appeal
under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Legal Issue:
Whether the period of limitation for filing
an appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
against the order passed under Section 34
of the Act, 1996 shall be 60 days as
provided under the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, or 90 days. Held: Considering
the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Borse Brothers (Para 33), it was
held that the bulk of appeals u/s 37 of the
Arbitration Act are governed by Section 13
of the Commercial Courts Act. Sub-section
(1-A) of Section 13 provides the forum for
appeals
and
prescribes
a
period
of
limitation of 60 days uniformly for all
appeals u/s 37. Section 13 being a special
law, overrides the Limitation Act, 1963, as
per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
Section
5
of
the
Limitation
Act
is
applicable to appeals filed against the
order passed by the Commercial Court,
and the total period of limitation shall not
exceed 120 days as provided under
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. A
litigant
is
not
responsible
for
the
negligence of counsel unless there is
remissness on his part. Appellant, Mathura
Vrindavan Development Authority, filed an
appeal u/s 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order
passed u/s 34 by the Commercial Court.
Appeal was filed with a delay of 29 days
due to wrong advice given by the
appellant's counsel regarding the period
of limitation. Delay of 29 days in filing the
appeal was condoned, and the benefit of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act was
granted to the appellant. Appeal allowed.
(Paras 12, 13, 14, 20)

Allowed. (E-5)

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

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation
Application No. 01 of 2023

1. Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana,
learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff
and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent/defendant on the
delay condonation application filed along
with arbitration appeal.

2. The arguments on the delay
condonation application have been heard
without calling for a counter affidavit to the
delay condonation application in view of
the fact that the counsel for the defendant
had agreed to argue the delay condonation
application without a counter affidavit as
only a question of law was involved as to
whether the limitation for filing the
arbitration appeal would be counted as
provided under the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 or as provided under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
whether this Court in either case has the