Virendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Heard Sri Pranvesh Awasthi, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶10

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2024, passed by Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi in Case No.665 of 2015: Rama and another Vs. Virendra, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife-the opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to his son-opposite party no.3 as maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

¶11

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist had filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C for initiation action against the opposite party no.2 for filing false affidavit in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been decided without deciding the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

¶12

In the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. it was alleged that in her affidavit of assets and liabilities the opposite party no.2

¶13

had stated that she has no source of income, whereas in her cross-examination she stated that she works as a laborer and earns about Rs.2,000/- per month.

¶14

A woman having a young child to take care of, who works as a casual labour under compulsion, cannot be expected to starve herself and let her son starve. In these circumstances if she casually works as a labour, it cannot be said that she has a source of income. The alleged statement made by the opposite party no.2 in her statement that she has no source of income cannot be said to be a false statement merely because in her cross-examination she stated that she works as a labour. Working as a labour is not a permanent or stable source of income.

¶15

When the revisionist has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the conduct of the opposite party no.2 is bad as she has made a false statement on oath, the court has to take into consideration the conduct of the revisionist also. The revisionist has not filed a copy of the judgment dated 05.01.2024, which is being challenged by him through the instant revision and he has merely annexed the operative portion of the order. He was required to submit an affidavit of his assets and liabilities in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324 . He has not placed copy of the affidavit of his assets and liabilities before this Court.

¶16

The learned counsel for the revisionist is not in a position to make a statement whether such affidavit was filed even before the learned Family Court. From the aforesaid conduct of the revisionist, it appears that he himself is hiding correct and relevant material facts from this court even while invoking revisional jurisdiction of this court. This conduct of the

¶17

revisionist is not appreciable.

¶18

It is also significant to note that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 26.08.2015 and the case was pending since then. The affidavit of assets and liabilities was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 03.11.2023 and the judgment was delivered on 05.01.2024. The application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed after closure of the submission and just before delivery of judgment merely as an attempt to cause further delay in disposal of the proceedings initiated by the revisionist's wife and minor child to enable them to sustain themselves. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Family Court has committed any illegality in deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without deciding the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist.

¶19

The revision lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Ram.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Bilas Alias Mithun Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Civil Sedcret. Lko. and Another

Aniruddh Singh Thru. His Son Bhupendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Law, Sectt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Ashish Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ramjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Abdul Raees Alias Danish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others