Dismissed
Rajeshwar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another
Allahabad HCCRLA/4687/2025
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
No. - 2025:AHC:57452 Court No. - 77 Case :-…
What the court decided
AI extract
No. - 2025:AHC:57452 Court No. - 77 Case :-…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57452
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 32 of 2025
Appellant :- Rajeshwar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeshwar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application
The office has reported this appeal to be beyond time by 68 days.
After considering the submissions made by the appellant and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing of the appeal and as such, the delay is condoned.
The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed.
Office to allot regular number to this appeal.
(Order on Appeal)
Appellant-Rajeshwar Singh has filed this appeal under Section 341 Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 2148 of 2022; titled Rajeshwar Singh vs. Seema Kushwaha , whereby his application under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been dismissed.
Appellant-husband (in person) has argued that the opposite party no. 2-wife filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to claim maintenance, which is based on false, misleading grounds and she has concealed the relevant information. According to the appellant, the maintenance case supported with affidavit is misrepresentation of the facts, and it amounts to perjury, but the trial court has not correctly appreciated the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. while dismissing the same vide impugned order dated 30.08.2024. Appellant has drawn the attention of the court to the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. dated 17.08.2022 and submitted that the wife-
opposite party no. 2 in her maintenance case had claimed that she has no source of income, and she alongwith children is being maintained by her parents, whereas she is an Advocate. Appellant further submits that it is wrongly mentioned by the wife that she is unemployed and dependent upon her parents, as she is practicing as an Advocate in the District Court, Kanpur Nagar. Appellant has referred to the other particulars given in the said affidavit and argued that the trial court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case carefully while passing the impugned order, therefore, it warrants interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
After hearing the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, as in any litigation, where parties contest rival claims, they plead their respective versions and the contentious issues are adjudicated upon by the court on the strength of the evidence adduced by the respective parties. Even in a case, where a party conceals the material facts, such a conduct would be relevant for the adjudication of the issues between the parties, but it may not amount to perjury, unless any fabricated document is tendered in court.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the material on record and has passed a reasoned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed summarily.
Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Brijesh
Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging perjury by the wife in her maintenance affidavit.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajeshwar Singh
State of U.P.
Seema Kushwaha
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court