# Smt. Rekha & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 451
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2948 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rekha-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51219
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure
Code,
1973-Sections
397
&
125Wife/Reviisonist
filed
maintenancedespite a prior court order granting
maintenance, the respondent/husband
did not comply-the family court later
dismissed the wife's application for nonprosecution, prompting her to file the
current revision petition-Held, Family
courts must prioritize timely disposal of
cases-judicial officers should exercise
heightened
sensitivity
in
cases
of
destitute
women-the
revision
was
disposed of with directions to decided
the case within three weeks.(Para 1 to
12)

The revision petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Smt. Rekha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
451
order on sentence, where there is a
judgment of conviction of the accused. In
the case of acquittal the power should be
exercised before the order of acquittal is
pronounced. Hence, the summoning order
has to precede the conclusion of trial by
imposition of sentence in the case of
conviction. If the order is passed on the
same day, it will have to be examined on
the facts and circumstances of each case
and if such summoning order is passed
either after the order of acquittal or
imposing
sentence
in
the
case
of
conviction,
the
same
will
not
be
sustainable.

25. Therefore, the answer to the legal
issue involved in the present case is found
in above dictum of Hon'ble Court. As in
the present case as the summmoning order
was passed prior to recording of conviction
and imposition of sentence on other
accused persons, although in the same
judgment,
the procedure
adopted
by
learned court below cannot be faulted with
and Hon'ble Supreme Court itself provided
a space for separate trial of the accused
who has been summoned under Section
319 Cr.P.C.. If trial of other accused
persons has concluded and it is not feasible
to carry on joint trial of the newly added
accused with other accused persons, who
are already facing trial, separate trial of
newly summoned accused is not barred
under law.

26. Consequently, I find no illegality
or
irregularity
or
perversity
in
the
impugned judgment passed by learned trial
court. The revison is devoid of merit and it
deserves to be dismissed.

27. The revision is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 451
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2948 of 2024

Smt. Rekha & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Braj Mohan Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sudhir Mehrotra

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure
Code,
1973-Sections
397
&
125Wife/Reviisonist
filed
maintenancedespite a prior court order granting
maintenance, the respondent/husband
did not comply-the family court later
dismissed the wife's application for nonprosecution, prompting her to file the
current revision petition-Held, Family
courts must prioritize timely disposal of
cases-judicial officers should exercise
heightened
sensitivity
in
cases
of
destitute
women-the
revision
was
disposed of with directions to decided
the case within three weeks.(Para 1 to
12)

The revision petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr.(2021) 2 SCC 324

2. Smt. Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi (2023) SCC
OnLine All 2684

3. Rajesh Babu Saxena Vs St. of U.P. CRLRD No.
1789 of 2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehrotra,
learned Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for
the revisionist-wife, learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent, and perused the record.

2. Succinctly, the brief facts outlined
in the application filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by
the revisionist-wife are that the revisionistwife married to respondent-husband on
2.7.2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies
and approximately Rs.10 lacs were spent
on the solemnization of the marriage by the
revisionist-wife's parents. The revisionistwife was discharging all the matrimonial
obligations, and on 8.3.2015, a baby girl
was born out of the said wedlock, who is
residing with the revisionist-wife. Despite
performing all matrimonial obligations, the
in-laws started raising demands of dowry
and perpetuating cruelty on the revisionistwife mentally and physically both. The
younger brother of the respondent-husband
had attempted to outrage the modesty of the
revisionist-wife many a times, to which she
complained to her husband, but he
continued to do so as the revisionist-wife's
husband kept silent. On 16.12.2024, a
panchayat was convened in the village. The
family members from the in-laws side were
persuaded to keep the revisionist-wife in
good condition, but the respondent-husband
kept on perpetuating cruelty to the
revisionist-wife.
On
25.12.2017,
the
respondent-husband's
younger
brother
attempted to commit rape upon the
revisionist-wife, and when she complained
to her husband, she was assaulted and
abused in filthy language. A medical was
also conducted on 27.12.2017 at the
District
Hospital
Saharanpur.
Since
27.12.2017, the revisionist-wife has been
living separately, and lastly stated that the
respondent-husband works as a Supervisor
in a factory, and besides the job, he also
owns a welding machine at Fatehpur Road
and earns more than Rs.45,000/- per month,
whereas revisionist-wife has no source of
income, and she is living a life of destitute.

3. The respondent-husband has refused
to maintain the revisionist-wife, therefore,
she had approached the learned Family
Judge
for
maintenance
by
way
of
application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the
learned Additional District Judge/Fast
Track Court-II/Family Judge, Saharanpur
vide
order
dated
19.4.2019
awarded
Rs.5000/- per month to the revisionist-wife
and Rs.3000/- per month the the minor
child till she attains the age of majority or
solemnization of her marriage, towards
maintenance, but the respondent-husband
has not paid even a single penny to the
destitute wife. Aggrieved by the order
dated 19.4.2019, the respondent-husband
approached the learned Family Court by
way of application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. for
setting aside the ex-parte order dated
19.4.2019, which was allowed vide order
dated
17.1.2023,
and
the
ex-parte
maintenance order dated 19.4.2019 was set
aside and restored to its original number
and status subject to cost of Rs.1500/-.
Thereafter, on 30.11.2023, the application
was erroneously dismissed for want of
prosecution.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionistwife has preferred the instant revision
petition assailing the legality and validity
of the impugned order dated 30.11.2023
passed by the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, in
Criminal Misc. Case No.12 of 2018 (new
Case No.21/2018). The impugned order,
along with the endorsement made by the
revisionist-wife on the order sheet, are
extracted herein below:

21-10-23
12 All. Smt. Rekha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
453

Jheku th]

foi{kh dks U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ esa gtksZ ij
vknsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk rnmijkUr mldk izk0 i=
1261⁄421⁄2 Lohdkj dj tokc noko gsrw vuqefr iznku dh
xbZ Fkh fdUrq iwoZ esa rhu ckj okn mDr ,d i{kh;
gksus ds mijkUr U;k;ky;ks ds vkns'kks dk ikyu ugh
fd;k x;k o bl ckj Hkh U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk le;
lhek ds vUnj ikyu ugh fd;k x;k bl dkj.k
foi{kh ds fo:) ,d i{kh; :i ls dk;Zokgh pykbZ
tkuh vko';d gSA

izfroknh U;k;ky; dk etkd mM+k jgk gS
o xfjek dks ugh eku jgk gSA rhu ckj Ex parte
Recall dh lqfo/kk ds ckn Hkh U;k0 ds vkns'kkuqlkj
gtkZ vnk u fd;k x;k izfroknh U;kf;d vkns'kks dk
ikyu ugh djrk gSA

ह० रेखा

सर परेशान होकर मै मुकदमा चलाना
नहीां चाहती प्रनतवादी न्यायालय के आदेशों का
पालन नही करता प्राधथगया प्रत्येक नतधथ पर
रूड़की से खचाग करके सहारनपुर न्यायालय में
आती है पाधथगया खचाग बदागश्त नही कर सकती
इस कारण मुकदमा नही चलाना चाहती है
प्राधथगया के मुकदमे के उद्देश्य की पूनतग नही हो
पायी है।

ह० रेखा

26.10.2023

5. It is anomalous that despite having a
grudging endorsement by the destitute
revisionist wife, who has been regularly
visiting the courts since 2018 and had lost
all hope from the learned Family Court to
get timely justice, she thus made the
aforesaid endorsement with hope and
expectation that a better sense would
prevail on the learned Family Judge to
decide
her
maintenance
application
pending almost for last six years undecided.
She
regularly
attended
the
court
proceedings diligently and perhaps had no
idea of the endorsement's consequences and
outcome; the learned Additional Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
dismissed
the
maintenance petition for non-prosecution
and consigned the file to the records
mechanically with the most insensitivity.

6. After examining the handwritten
endorsement of the revisionist- wife on the
court's order -sheet, a report was called
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from all the learned Family Courts of
District Saharanpur with regard to the
compliance of guidelines issued by the
Supreme Court and this Court from time to
time. The relevant portion of the order
dated 1.5.2024 is reproduced herein below:

".....This Court finds that the
impugned order is not only erroneous but
also immoral and inhuman, therefore, the
Principal Judge, Family Court is directed
to file a compliance report of his own court
along with all courts that comes under his
control and supervision with regard to the
compliance
of
guidelines
issued
by
Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and
another (supra); and this Court in Smt.
Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi (supra) and
Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and
another (supra). The compliance report
shall be placed in accordance with para 87
to 90 of Smt. Parul Tyagi case (supra) of
each cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. pending
disposal before the Family Courts of
Saharanpur, on or before the next date
fixed...."

7. In compliance with the order dated
1.5.2024, learned Principal Judge Family
Court, Saharanpur, has submitted a report
stating that the Family Courts are adhering
to the directions issued by the Supreme
Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another,
(2021) 2 SCC 324, Smt. Parul Tyagi v.
Gaurav Tyagi, (2023) SCC OnLine All
2684, and Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of
U.P. and another passed in Criminal
Revision Defective No.1789 of 2023 in
letter and spirit.

8. I deem it appropriate not to discuss
the contents of the report in detail as the
learned Judge -in- charge Family Court has
flagged certain issues that are concerned
with the administration of the affairs of
learned Judges of the Family Court and
assured this Court that the Family Courts
have started complying with the directions
issued in the above-referred judgments.

9. On returning to the merits of the
case, by previous order dated 1.5.2024, this
Court remanded the instant case to the
learned Principal Judge Family Court,
Saharanpur, to ensure compliance with
guidelines issued in aforesaid cases while
deciding the applicant's case afresh. This
Court hopes that the applicant's case must
have been decided in accordance with the
judgements referred to herein above and, if
not, then shall be decided within three
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of the order on merits.

10. Acknowledging the facts of the
case and the realities of prolonged court
proceedings, this Court emphasizes the
urgent need for learned Family Court
judges to exercise their judicial mind with
heightened sensitivity and responsibility.
The judicial system must prioritize the
expeditious disposal of maintenance cases
of destitute women who are left without
support from their parents, in-laws, or
husbands, ensuring that justice is not
delayed for those struggling for basic
maintenance and dignity in society. One of
the essential aspects of timely justice lies in
retaining the essence of sensitivity towards
the cause at hand and upholding the
judiciary's
societal
responsibility.
Therefore, learned family court judges
must perform their judicial duties with
heightened responsibility, sensitivity, and a
steadfast commitment to delivering timely
justice while upholding judicial discipline
and propriety.

11. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to transmit a copy of this order to
12 All. Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
455
the Director JTRI to sensitise the judicial
officers during regular training sessions to
observe judicial discipline and maintain
judicial propriety in following directions
issued by the Supreme Court in the
Rajnesh case (supra) and directions issued
by this court in Smt. Parul Tyagi case
(supra), and Rajesh Babu Saxena case
(supra) in letter and spirit. A checklist of
essential points, including a clear outline of
do's, should be prepared and circulated
among the learned family court judges
from time to time accordingly.

12. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant revision is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 455
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3420 of 2022

Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Vijendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., A.B.N. Tripathi, Arvind Yadav, Gulab
Shankar Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973
-
Sections
397/401

-
Revision under Cr.P.C.-Summoning order
challenged- Requirement of judicial
satisfaction
-
Proforma
summoning
order passed without recording reasons
or discussing evidence - Violation of
proviso
to
Section
202
Cr.P.C.
-
Reiterated,
Magistrate
must
apply
judicial
mind,
record
prima
facie
satisfaction and refer to materials relied
upon - Summoning order liable to be
set aside-revision application allowed.
(Paras 10, 11, and 14)

HELD:
It is admitted fact that there was dispute in
respect of ancestral property in between
opposite party no.2/complainant and his brother
Kripa Shanker Singh and several litigations
between them are going on. Revisionists Nos.1,
3 and 4 are witnesses of charge-sheet filed
against opposite party no.2/complainant and his
son. It appears that the present complaint has
been filed only to create pressure upon the
revisionists. As per injury report, there was no
gun shot injury to the complainant and all the
injuries reflect only pain in different parts of
body. No external injury was found by the
doctor who prepared the injury report. Doctor
was not produced in evidence. The learned
Magistrate without recording any prima facie
satisfaction regarding truthness of incident, has
summoned the revisionists. No evidence of
complainant and his witnesses were discussed in
the impugned order. (Para 10)

From the bare perusal of summoning order, it is
apparent that it is a proforma order without
application of judicial mind. The law has been
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Hon'ble Court in series of cases that before
passing the summoning order in a complaint
case, the Magistrate must record his satisfaction
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
The Magistrate is required to apply his judicial
mind as to whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding in the case or not and formation of
such opinion is required to be St.d in the order
itself. In the present case it is apparent that no
reason
has
been
assigned
and
without
discussing any evidence adduced by the
complainant and his witnesses, the summoning
order has been passed
by the learned
Magistrate. (Para 11)

In the present case, the learned Magistrate
without discussing any evidence adduced by the
complainant and his witnesses and without
recording any prima facie satisfaction has
summoned the revisionists. The order impugned
has been passed without application of judicial