NEERAJ DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

   HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
   MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11798 of 2025

Neeraj Devi
                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)               :   Chandra Dutt
Counsel for Respondent(s)               :   Rajkishore Singh

Court No. - 89
                 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel
for the private respondent, and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA
for State respondent.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer
to issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the order dated
20.8.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.
6, Kanpur Dehat, in Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2024
(Neeraj Devi vs. State of U.P. and others). The petitioner has
also prayed for issuance of a suitable order or direction to set
aside the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat, in Complaint Case No.
781 of 2023 (Smt. Neeraj Devi vs. Vinay Kumar Sachan and
others). It has further been prayed that this Court may be
pleased to direct the court below to pass a fresh order in
Complaint Case No. 781 of 2023 (Smt. Neeraj Devi vs. Vinay
Kumar Sachan and others) for summoning and punishing
opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and
506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
marriage of the petitioner with respondent no. 2 was
solemnized in the year 1992. However, soon after the marriage,
respondent no. 2 started torturing and harassing her for demand
of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The other respondents,
being family members and in-laws of the petitioner, were also
involved in harassing and torturing her. During the subsistence
                                                 A227 No. 11798 of 2025
                         2

of the marriage, one son and one daughter were born out of the
wedlock. However, no financial support was provided by
respondent no. 2 for the upbringing and education of the
children. Aggrieved by the conduct of respondent no. 2, the
petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 781 of 2023 (Smt. Neeraj
Devi vs. Vinay Kumar Sachan and others). The statements of
the petitioner and her witnesses were recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. However, the complaint was dismissed by the
learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.11.2024 after calling for
an inquiry report from the police and observing that the
allegations, after a long lapse of matrimonial life, appeared to
be exaggerated and fabricated. Aggrieved by the said order
dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision
No. 197 of 2024 (Neeraj Devi vs. State of U.P. and others),
which was also dismissed, affirming the findings recorded by
the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the petitioner, being the legally wedded
wife of respondent no. 2, is still living in destitution and is
maintaining herself and her children with great difficulty. It
was submitted that she somehow managed to solemnize the
marriage of her daughter with financial assistance from her
parents and relatives. He contended that both the impugned
orders have been passed on erroneous presumptions and are
liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents
submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are false
and concocted. It was argued that nearly thirty years have
passed since the marriage, and the petitioner is not willing to
cohabit with respondent no. 2. It was further submitted that the
petitioner has taken possession of the respondent's house,
compelling him to leave the house along with his aged mother.
Learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by both
the courts below are based on the material available on record,
which clearly establishes that the allegations regarding demand
of dowry are highly improbable and unusual.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record as well as the order passed by the learned trial court.

6. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
findings recorded by the courts below. It is evident that a
                                                                                          A227 No. 11798 of 2025
                                                                  3

                                        considerable period has elapsed since the solemnization of the
                                        marriage between the parties, and it is difficult to presume that
                                        a demand for dowry would continue even after a lapse of
                                        nearly thirty years of matrimonial life.

                                        7. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld, and the
                                        present petition is dismissed.
                                        May 5, 2026/Mukesh

                                                                                     (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad