Alok Kumar vs Saroj

"To set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Case no. 642 of 2022 (Saroj vs Alok Kumar) under section 127 Cr.P.C. by leaned Family Court, Sitapur contained as Annexure no. 1 to this petition in the interest of justice."

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is army personnel and his marriage was solemnized with the private respondent. He further submits that the petitioner was not allowed to live with family at the posting place, as a result, the private respondent was annoyed and she filed several cases against the petitioner alongwith application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. He next submits that application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the competent Court on 27.07.2018, thereafter, application was filed by the private respondent for enhancement, which was also allowed in favour of the private respondent. He also submits that the private respondent never discharge her duties and she is residing separately since 2016 and there is a possibility of settlement, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.

¶15

4. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the main order was passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was never challenged, and the enhancement application was filed, which was allowed by the trial Court. It is evident that the possibility of

¶16

A227 No. 317 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

settlement cannot be ruled out in matrimonial matters.

¶19

5. Issue notice to the private respondent.

¶20

6. List this case on 16.02.2026.

¶21

7. On the next date, the petitioner and the private respondent shall appear in person before this Court.

¶22

8. Station House Officer, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Sitapur is directed to ensure the presence of the private respondent before this Court on the next date."

¶23

2. Learned A.G.A. informs that State has not been arrayed as a party and, therefore, copy of the petition was not available with the office of learned Government Advocate.

¶24

3. List this case on 16.03.2026, in terms of the order dated 28.01.2026.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the State as respondent and also to provide a copy of the petition in the office of learned Government Advocate, forthwith.

¶26

In pursuance of aforesaid order, petitioner as well as respondent no.1 are present before this Court.

¶27

Petitioner stated that due to past behaviour of the private respondent, he is not willing to join her association.

¶28

Private respondent stated that she is ready to live with the petitioner.

¶29

At this stage, parties have no objection, in case, matter is sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court.

¶30

List this case on 20.3.2026 before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court.

¶31

Parties are directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court, on the date fixed.

¶32

In-charge, Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court is directed to depute some responsible mediator for adjudicating the issue and submit a report by the next date of listing.

¶33

List this case on 29.4.2026.

¶34

A227 No. 317 of 2026

¶35

3

¶36

Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court within a period of one week from today and same shall be remitted to the private respondent, forthwith.

¶37

In case, aforesaid amount is not deposited, matter will not be forwarded to Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court.

¶38

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶39

March 16, 2026

¶40

GauraV/-

¶41

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Kumar v. Saroj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar v. Saroj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kaushal Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P.through Secy Secondary Education

C/M Garwar Rural Edu. Ex. Ass. Thru. Manager,Dhruv Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Niranjan Kumar vs Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. S.P. and Head of Branch Cbi, Acb Lko

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road Lko.

Peer Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Ayansh Thru. Her Mother Smt. Rosni Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others