Masaruf Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136750

Court No. - 91

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3024 of 2024

Revisionist :- Masaruf Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Choudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sunil Choudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj dated 24th April, 2024 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 659/12 of 2017 (Smt. Azra Begum & Others Vs. Masaruf Ali) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the Principal Judge has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 from the date of filing of the application.

¶8

Facts in short are that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 31st October, 2010. From the aforesaid wedlock, opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were borne. After some time of marriage, the relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 became stained and incompatible. Consequently, opposite party nos. 2 to 4 filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 659/12 of 2017 (Smt. Azra Begum & Others Vs. Masaruf Ali) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj on 22nd November, 2017. Along with application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., opposite party nos. 2 to 4 also filed interim application on 10th December, 2018. After that the revisionist filed objection against the interim application on 17th December, 2018. The Principal Judge vide order dated 11th November, 2019 considering the interim application of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 directing the revisionist to pay 10,-000/-per month to opposite party nos. 2 to 4. Consequently, the revisionist has been paid the aforesaid monthly maintenance allowance to opposite party nos. 2 to 4 regularly. On the affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 during the course of proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. regarding her monthly income, the revisionist filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 659/12 of 2020 under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which has not

¶9

been decided till date by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Without deciding the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Principal Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2024 has allowed the application of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 allowing the application of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence the present revision.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the Principal Judge has passed the impugned judgment and order without deciding the application of the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which is per se manifestly illegal. In the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. it has specifically been stated that opposite party no.2 has given false affidavit regarding her monthly income and source of their livelihood. Opposite party no.2 was working as teacher in a Madarsa and now is working as Warden in F.H. Medical College, Tundla, District Firozabad and receiving Rs. 70,000/salary per month and she is fully capable to maintain herself.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that first the Principal Judge should have considered the application of the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and thereafter passed the final judgment on the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, such procedure known to law has not been followed by the Principal Judge while passing the impugned judgment. In support of his case, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 15th December, 2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3760 of 2023 (Amit Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. & Another) (Neutral Citation No.-2023:AHC: 238266) . On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the revisionist states that the impugned judgment and order cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶12

On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. They also concede that the Principal, while passing the impugned final judgment, should have first decide the application of the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the present revision, this Court is of the considered opinion that judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj dated 24th April, 2024 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 659/12 of 2017 (Smt. Azra Begum & Others Vs. Masaruf Ali) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is illegal and hereby set aside.

¶14

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj is directed to decide the application of the revisionist under Section 340

¶15

Cr.P.C. first after hearing opposite party nos. 2 to 4 by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. After disposal of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.the Principal Judge shall decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within two months thereafter, without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶16

9.The present criminal revision is partly allowed.

¶17

(Madan Pal Singh, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 12.8.2025

¶19

Sushil/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Masaruf Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masaruf Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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