Ritu Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1043 of 2024

¶3

Ritu Rai

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Rajesh Mishra, Santosh Kumar, Sharda Prasad Mishra, Subhash Chandra Maurya, Swatantra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Rakesh Dubey

¶6

Court No. - 86

¶7

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶9

The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.1.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No.687 of 2021 (Ritu Rai Vs. Dhiresh Narayan), whereby the application of the revisionist herein, for maintenance filed under Section 125 CrPC, 1973 has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that, the order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, dated 17.1.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and the same has been passed without application of mind and the same is innocuous and erroneous in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the revisionist draws the attention of this Court to internal page 11 of the impugned order dated 17.1.2024 and running page 22 of the instant revision. For better understanding, the relevant part is extracted herein-under:-

¶11

" चूँिक वािदनी ने जो िवपक्षी की आय 100000/- रूपये मािसक बतायी है , उसका कोई साक्ष्य दािखल नहीं िकया जा सका है। इसके िवपरीत प्रितवादी ने अपने कथनों को सािबत िकया है। चूँिक वािदनी के नाम में जो िभन्नताएं हैं , उनसे यह स्पष्ट नहीं है िक वािदनी द्वारा न्यायालय में स्वच्छ हाथों से आया गया है। जब तक माननीय उच्च न्यायालय या िकसी अन्य सक्षम न्यायालय का कोई आदेश नहीं िकया जाता है , तब तक िवपक्षी को वािदनी के भरण पोषण के िलये आदेिशत िकया जाना उिचत प्रतीत नहीं होता है। अतः िवपक्षी धारा -125 दं०प्र०सं० के सीमा िवस्तार के अन्तगर्त प्रािथनी के भरण - पोषण के िलये दाियत्वाधीन नहीं है। "

¶12

CRLR No. 1043 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

From the bare reading of the findings arrived at by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, it is clear that, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, did not apply her judicial mind, rather laid the onus upon this Court or any other Competent Court, if the High Court or any other competent Court passes an order, then only, any amount of maintenance shall be paid to the revisionist.

¶15

Without going into entire merits of the case and the fact that, the opposite party No.2 is admittedly Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, the impugned order dated 17.1.2024 is hereby set aside and the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar is directed to pass an order afresh, taking into consideration the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury reported in AIR 2017 SC 2383. It is further directed that, both the parties shall place on record the financial status/ sources of income and thereafter, the final order shall be passed by the concerned Family Court by taking into consideration the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh (supra) and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra). However, any interim maintenance, which was being paid by the husband/ opposite party No.2 as per Army Rules, shall continue to be paid till afresh order is passed by the learned Family Court concerned and the petition under Section 125 CrPC is finally disposed.

¶16

It is further directed that, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, (Ms. Rekha Singh), posted at the relevant point of time at Kanpur Nagar, is advised to remain careful in future and while passing such an order, shall carefully go through the same and shall refrain from passing such innocuous orders, as has been passed in the present case, as there appears to be total non-application of mind, while passing such order.

¶17

7. Moreover, all the Judicial Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh are directed that, as and when a judgement is being passed by them, they shall pass the judgements as per numbering of the paragraphs and each and every paragraph shall be numbered chronologically, in order to make it convenient for this Court, or any other Court, or any third person, or the public at large, so that a more clarity is established in the orders and judgments.

¶18

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned officer (Ms. Rekha Singh), wherever she is posted as on date, and further, a copy of this order shall be circulated amongst all the Judicial Officers of State of Uttar Pradesh, forthwith, by Registrar (Compliance) for complying the aforesaid directions,

¶19

CRLR No. 1043 of 2024

¶20

3

¶21

as contained in para 7 of this order.

¶22

The instant revision stands disposed of in terms of above. However, it is made clear that, nothing as above has been expressed on the merits of the case.

¶23

March 18, 2026 Gurpreet Singh

¶24

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶25

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

Ritu Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritu Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Aas Mohammad @ Aashu vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shalig Ram Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Anokhelal vs State of U.P.

Namrata vs State of U.P.