RANJEET SINGHversusNEETU SINGH

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.12198 of 2025

Ranjeet Singh                                                                  …..Petitioners(s)

                                              Versus

Neetu Singh                                                                  …..Respondents(s)


Counsel for Petitioners(s)                      : Anurag Shukla, Arun Kumar Soni,
                                                  Kumar Anubhav, Ms. Amrita Rai
                                                  Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                       : Gyan Chandra, Mahendra Bahadur
                                                  Singh, Vijeta Singh


Court No. -37
                                                                                               AFR

                          HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

1.      Heard Shri Arun Kumar Soni and Shri Kumar Anubhav, learned
counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Amicus
Curiae; Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the respondent; learned
A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

2.      The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband with
the prayer to expedite the proceedings of Maintenance Case No.523 of
2025, filed under Section 144 BNSS, 20231 (Order for maintenance of

1 Section 144. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
  (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—
  (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; or
  (b) his legitimate or illegitimate child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself; or
  (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority,
  where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain
  itself; or
  (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
  a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make
  a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such
  monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may
  from time to time direct:
                                                    2
                                                                   Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


wives, children and parents) titled as ‘Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh’,
pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah.

3.         The brief facts arising out from the application under section
144 of BNSS, 2023 are succinctly reproduced hereinafter. The
marriage of petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was
solemnized on 18.5.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs
at J.P. Garden, Pachavali Road, Etawah. At the time of marriage both
the parties were unemployed and were preparing for competitive
     Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a female child referred to in clause (b) to
     make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the
     husband of such female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:
     Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding
     monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a
     monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and
     the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the
     same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
     Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and
     expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within
     sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
     Explanation.—For the purposes of this Chapter, "wife" includes a woman who has been
     divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
     (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of
     proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the
     application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case
     may be.
     (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such
     Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the
     manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of
     each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
     proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to
     imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
     Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section
     unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from
     the date on which it became due:
     Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with
     him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal
     stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is
     satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
     Explanation—.If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it
     shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.
     (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim
     maintenance and expenses of proceeding, from her husband under this section if she is living in
     adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are
     living separately by mutual consent.
      (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living
       in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they
       are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
                                      3
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


examinations. Since both the parties were good in their academics,
their families decided to solemnize their marriage with the belief that
soon they would get government employment. Soon after the
marriage, the respondent-wife secured government job in High Court
of Allahabad on the post of Additional Private Secretary, but the
petitioner-husband did not get a government job even though he has
been equally good in studies, as claimed by the petitioner. The
petitioner while preparing for the competitive examinations also
pursued Law and obtained LL.B. degree, and thereafter got enrolled
as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar.

3.1   It is further contended in maintenance application that after
securing a job as an Additional Private Secretary in High Court of
Allahabad, the respondent-wife started quarreling and misbehaving
with the petitioner and his mother and tried every possible means to
separate the petitioner-husband from his family and launched false
criminal prosecution against the petitioner and his family members by
influencing the police. The petitioner has no independent source of
income. He is an unemployed youth, and is preparing for competitive
examinations. The respondent-wife also started taunting the petitioner
for being unemployed and even humiliated the petitioner in front of
her colleagues at her work place. The respondent-wife started filing
false FIR based on concocted story against the petitioner with the
intention to spoil his career.

3.2   The petitioner has no source of income for survival and is
maintaining himself by way of taking loan from his friends and
relatives. Presently the petitioner has no option except of filing an
application under Section 144 BNSS, 2023 for seeking maintenance
from the respondent-wife. The petitioner has also contended that he
has not filed any petition before any Court for seeking maintenance
prior to filing of the present petition.
                                   4
                                                Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


4.    In support of the contentions raised in the maintenance
application filed under section 144 of BNSS, 2023, the learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent-wife has spoiled
the career of the petitioner by filing two FIRs against him based on
incorrect facts; (i) Case Crime No.27 of 2023, under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S.
Mahila Thana, Commissionerate Prayagraj, (ii) Case Crime No.043 of
2024, under Sections 406, 506 IPC, at P.S. Cantt, Commissionerate
Prayagraj. The respondent-wife has also filed a divorce petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 registered as Marriage
Case No.2504 of 2023, tilted as ‘Neetu Singh v. Ranjeet Singh’,
pending trial before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Prayagraj. The petitioner has to travel for around 400 kilometers on
each fixed date to attend the court proceedings.

4.1   He next submitted that the petitioner has also filed an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
registered as Case No.43 of 2024 before the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Etawah and the respondent-wife has not participated in
the said proceedings. In fact, the respondent-wife preferred a Transfer
Application No.883 of 2024 before this Court for transfer of the Case
No.43 of 2024 pending trial before learned Family Court, Etawah. The
co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the aforesaid proceedings vide
order dated 14.11.2024.

4.2   The petitioner has to travel thousands of kilometers in a month
to attend the Court proceedings with regard to numerous cases filed
by the respondent-wife, and due to the same reason, the petitioner has
developed    serious   health   issues   like     high       blood         pressure,
hypertension, sugar, high cholesterol, urinary problems, heart and
kidney diseases.
                                   5
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


4.3   The respondent-wife has not been appearing before the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, in the proceedings under section 144
of BNSS, 2023 and since then no effective order has been passed.

4.4   Lastly, it is submitted by way of rejoinder affidavit dated
28.11.2025 through Advocate Shri Anurag Shukla that the present
petition has been filed with a limited relief seeking expeditious
disposal of the application under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and as
such no counter affidavit is required. The petitioner has also filed an
application no.7 of 2025 dated 15.12.2025 through Advocate Shri
Arun Kumar Soni along with an affidavit seeking liberty from this
Court to withdraw the present petition, which was argued by Shri O.P.
Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

4.5   The petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit dated
9.12.2025, wherein he submitted that due to his sudden illness he
failed to appear before this Court on 8.12.2025 and non appearance of
the petitioner was intimated to this Court by post on 7.12.2025
through the petitioner’s counsel to the Registrar General. The
whatsapp message was also sent and the same was acknowledged by
the respondent’s counsel.

5.    Per contra, Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent-wife submitted that the petitioner comes from a political
family and is a registered Advocate with Bar Council of Uttar
Pradesh. The petitioner has started his legal practice before this Court
under the juniorship of Shri Anurag Shukla (Advocate Roll
No.0127/2016). The uncle of the petitioner was the Member of 15 th
Lok Sabha from Etawah constituency while his mother was a Gram
Pradhan. The petitioner also was in construction business. The
petitioner is fraud, compulsive liar and a greedy man. He does
everything to get easy money. He is a healthy and sturdy man and is
                                     6
                                                  Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


addicted to alcohol and bad habits; he wants free money to live a
debauched life.

5.1   The petitioner has a history of making false and misleading
statements before learned Family Court and this Hon’ble Court as
well. He has attempted to secure relief by suppressing and concealing
true and material facts. The petitioner has misled the Court to obtain
favourable orders while continuing to take benefit from the
respondent wife’s income. Despite being an Advocate, the petitioner
has portrayed himself as a helpless and pitiable person in order to gain
undue sympathy and advantage in the proceedings.

5.2   On 10.11.2020, the petitioner fraudulently, by taking the
respondent-wife in confidence on false promise to purchase a plot of
land, took a personal loan of Rs.11,50,000/- from the respondent’s
salary account in SBI Bank having branch at High Court at Lucknow-
a Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petitioner
again on 6.10.2022, took personal loan of Rs.13,56,000/- to be repaid
in six years from the respondent’s salary account, in Jhalwa Branch of
SBI, at Prayagraj. The respondent-wife has been paying monthly EMI
of Rs.26,020/- since then, and will pay till October, 2028. The said
loan was taken under the guise of purchasing a plot whereas the
petitioner fraudulently kept transferring the loan amount into his
personal account through UPI and exhausted all the loan amount, total
amounting to Rs.13,56,000/-, on alcoholic drinks and leading
luxurious life, and other nefarious activities.

5.3   It is next submitted that all the banking details, password, ATM/
Debit Card of the respondent-wife were with the petitioner-husband,
who without her consent and knowledge made unauthorized
withdrawals and spent the entire money on leading luxurious life and
consuming alcoholic drinks.
                                   7
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


5.4   As per respondent-wife, when she confronted the petitioner
regarding the account statement, and luxurious spending, initially he
avoided the respondent and thereafter started perpetuating cruelty.
The loan was taken under the guise of taking a plot of land and when
she insisted for a visit to the plot, the petitioner became aggressive
and started causing mental and physical cruelty upon the respondent.
The petitioner left the respondent-wife at her maternal home and
stopped contacting her. After some days, the respondent-wife visited
her rented home in Kalindipuram, Prayagraj and came to know that
her husband (petitioner) had run away with all the household articles,
jewelries and her Vitara Brezza car bearing registration no.UP-70-
EW-3661, purchased by the respondent-wife from her own funds.

5.5   She next submitted that when the respondent-wife asked the
petitioner to return her car, given in the marriage, he shamelessly
demanded Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent. Aggrieved by the same,
the respondent lodged an FIR against the petitioner on 07.03.2024
having Case Crime No.0043 of 2024, under Sections 406, 506 IPC, at
P.S. Cantt, Prayagraj. Against the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner filed a
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4930 of 2024 with the prayer to
quash the FIR and the petition was dismissed with the observation that
the FIR prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offense and
the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained. Even after lodging
an FIR, the petitioner refused to return the car, and aggrieved by the
same, the respondent-wife was further forced to file Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.14344 of 2024 with the prayer to direct to the police
to recover the vehicle registered in her name and handover to her. The
same was dismissed as ‘not pressed’ with the understanding that the
matter would be settled out of the Court in mediation proceedings.

5.6   Aggrieved by the constant physical and metal abuse by the
petitioner, the respondent- wife lodged an FIR on 01.04.2023 having
                                   8
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


Case Crime No.0027 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Mahila Thana, Prayagraj.
Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner has
filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6041 of 2023 before this
Court with the prayer to quash the FIR which was dismissed for want
of prosecution vide order dated 06.08.2024, and thereafter two FIRs
have also been lodged against the petitioner-husband.

5.7   Aggrieved by the ill and reprehensible behaviour of the
petitioner, leading to the mental and physical torture, the respondent-
wife, filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad,
which is pending for final adjudication. The respondent-wife has gone
through emotional dysregulation and cognitive disturbances and a
situation came where it became impossible to live with the petitioner-
husband, and therefore, the respondent-wife filed the aforesaid
divorce petition.

5.8    In the divorce petition, on 20.5.2025, the petitioner filed an
application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking
maintenance based on concocted and false averments. The learned
Family Court vide order dated 15.9.2025 allowed the application
under section 24 of the HMA with the direction to the respondent-wife
to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as an interim maintenance and
Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Against the order dated
15.9.2025, the respondent-wife filed a review application which is
pending for adjudication before the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Prayagraj.

5.9   She next submitted that the respondent-wife challenged the
proceedings filed under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 pending
adjudication before the learned Family Court, Etawah, before this
                                   9
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


Court by way of a Transfer Application (Criminal) No.517 of 2025,
this Court vide order dated 3.11.2025 stayed the further proceedings
arising out of Maintenance Case No.523 of 2025 filed under section
144 of BNSS, 2023 pending before the learned Family Court, Etawah.

5.10 The conduct of the petitioner clearly reflects a deliberate
attempt by initiating multiple frivolous proceedings solely to delay the
lawful adjudication of the matter. The petitioner despite being capable
of earning has been intentionally suppressing material facts and
falsely portraying himself as an unemployed person only to seek
undue advantage, and has engaged the respondent-wife in multiple
litigation to frustrate her.

5.11 It’s next emphatically submitted that the respondent was
subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty at the hands of
the petitioner-husband, which, according to her, led to severe
emotional distress and depression. It has further been alleged that the
petitioner is habitual drunkard and had, without lawful justification,
procured substantial personal loans from the salary account of the
respondent-wife, and that the withdrawn amounts were misused for
gambling, drinking and other improvident activities.

5.12 Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-wife
concluded her submission by stating that a compensatory cost be
imposed on the petitioner-husband, and a more realistic and pro-active
approach is needed for Courts to deal with such matters. The
compensatory cost may act deterrent to vexatious or luxury litigation
born out of false pretenses, ego, greed, or resorted to as a buying-time
tactics. In this context, she placed reliance upon the observation made
by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta 2,



2   [(2009) 2 SCC 656]
                                    10
                                               Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj3, and Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghuvir
Saran Charitable Trust4.

6. In brief, few facts and the relevant contents of the orders passed
during the hearing of the petition would help to reach to a logical
conclusion. The present petition was filed before this Court on
25.09.2025 and was firstly listed on 04.11.2025. On the first date,
none was present on behalf of the petitioner neither any adjournment
slip was moved on his behalf. This Court directed both the parties to
appear in person and accordingly the Registry was directed to
communicate a copy of the order to Shri Kumar Anubhav, learned
counsel for the petitioner on his registered mobile number to ensure
the presence of the petitioner in person on the next date of hearing. In
compliance thereof a copy of the order dated 4.11.2025 was
communicated to Shri Kumar Anubhav on his registered mobile
no.6387317341.

6.1      On 11.11.2025, on the joint request of learned counsel for the
parties, the matter was adjourned to 21.11.2025, and when the matter
was taken up on 21.11.2025, again none appeared on behalf of the
petitioner while the respondent’s counsel was present, and on his
request the case was adjourned to 25.11.2025. On 25.11.2025, the
respondent-wife filed counter affidavit while time was granted to the
petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit and accordingly, rejoinder affidavit
was filed on 28.11.2025.

6.2     On 03.12.2025 after hearing learned counsel for both the
parties, this Court called for the certified copy of the record from
learned District Judge, Etawah regarding all pending cases between
the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife was also
directed to furnish details regarding pending cases between the parties
3   [(2010) 8 SCC 1]
4   [JT 2011(12) SC 435]
                                   11
                                              Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


before the Allahabad District Court and High Court along with orders
and the learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to prepare
with the case.

6.3   On 8.12.2025, the matter was called twice. None appeared on
behalf of petitioner while the learned counsel for the respondent was
present. The matter was scheduled to be taken up at 10:30 a.m. and
was taken up at 12:40 p.m. still neither petitioner nor his counsel
appeared on his behalf. In compliance with the order dated 3.12.2025,
the respondent’s learned counsel furnished details of the litigation
pending between the parties before the various Courts. Learned
counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the learned counsel
for the petitioner was communicated on two separate occasions and
petitioner’s learned counsel cited his unavailability and thereafter
finally deliberately refused to accept the counter affidavit. In the
interest of justice, this Court had granted last and final opportunity to
the petitioner to advance submissions personally or through duly
engaged counsel and the copy of order was duly communicated to the
petitioner on his registered mobile number through Registrar
(Compliance).

6.4   On 10.12.2025, Shri Arun Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the
petitioner appeared and sought time to go through the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-wife and to file rejoinder
affidavit, accordingly one week’s time was further accorded to the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent was heard at length and she was directed to furnish
the copy of petition to Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Advocate, who
may assist the Court on behalf of the petitioner, on the next date of
hearing if the petitioner’s counsel fails to appear before the Court.
This alternative arrangement was made because the petitioner was
                                  12
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


frequently replacing the advocates, and the Court was facing difficulty
to proceed with the matter.

6.5   On 17.12.2025, Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Shri Arun Kumar Soni, learned counsel appeared for the
petitioner and submitted that an application for withdrawal of the case
is pending before the Registry waiting clearance, therefore, either the
case may be dismissed as withdrawn or the Court may wait till the
time the withdrawal application is cleared by the Registry. Upon the
query of this Court regarding the possibility of amicable settlement, if
any, may be arrived between the parties, the learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to seek mutual
divorce. The Court further queried regarding the terms and conditions
of the mutual divorce on which the learned Senior Counsel submitted
that he had no instruction in this regard and requested a discharge
from this case and left the Court. Thereafter, this Court accordingly,
directed Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Advocate to assist the Court
as an Amicus-Curiae.

7.    On 17.12.2025, Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Amicus-Curiae
filed written submission, and the same has been taken on record. She
contended that the petitioner is already getting maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- per month and also received one time amount of
Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses. The maintenance was awarded
pursuant to an application dated 20.05.2025 filed by the petitioner
under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the divorce
proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife, pending trial before the
learned Family Court, Prayagraj. The petitioner has not disclosed the
details of the application dated 20.05.2025, filed under section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and an order dated 15.09.2025 passed by
the learned Family Judge, Prayagraj directing the respondent-wife to
pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.10,000/- towards
                                   13
                                              Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


legal expenses, in an application filed under Section 144 BNSS, 2023
before learned Family Judge at Etawah. Learned Amicus-Curiae has
drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph no.16 of the
Maintenance Application No.523 of 2025, filed under 144 BNSS,
2023 wherein the petitioner has stated that no case with regard to
maintenance is pending in any Court and sworn affidavit to this effect.

7.1    The learned Amicus-Curiae further stated that even if the wife
is employed, the husband cannot make himself wholly dependent on
his wife’s income through a device under Section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act. The petitioner has not filed an affidavit of assets and
liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha and another5. She next
submitted that the petitioner has sworn false affidavit before this court
and before the learned Judge, Family Court both at Prayagraj and
Etawah. In support of the submissions, learned Amicus-Curiae has
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (supra); a judgment passed by Bombay High
Court in Smt. Kanchan w/o Kamlendra Sawarkar v. Kamlendra6; a
judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh in Yashpal Singh Thakur v. Smt.
Anjana Rajput7; and a judgment passed by High Court of Kerala in the
case of Nivya v. Shivaprasad8 to substantiate that the husband is
disentitled to claim maintenance under section 144 of BNSS, 2023
and there was no reason for the learned Family Judge, Etawah to
entertain such a frivolous application.

7.2    Learned Amicus-Curiae further stated that petitioner is in habit
of misleading Courts by placing incorrect facts and swearing false
affidavits. This become grave when the petitioner himself claims to be
a practicing Advocate and has been appearing in this Court regularly

5   [(2021) 2 SCC 324]
6   [AIR 1992 Bombay 493]
7   [AIR 2001 MP 67]
8   [2017 SCC OnLine Ker 2567]
                                  14
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


under the guidance of Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel.
Contesting matrimonial litigation is one thing, and filing false and
frivolous petitions along with false affidavits is another matter of
grave concern. The conduct of the petitioner shall be taken seriously.
On one hand, the respondent-wife is paying monthly installment of
Rs.26,020/- against the loan spent by the petitioner-husband for
consuming alcohol and leading luxurious life. On the other hand, the
petitioner has moved two separate maintenance applications; (i) under
section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and (ii) section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 accompanied with false affidavits. Further, the petitioner is
getting a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month by misleading the
learned Family Court and received one time amount of Rs.10,000/-
towards litigation expenses under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

7.3     She next submitted that it can very well be understood that
petitioner is a crook and lair, and leading a debauched life. The Court
may proceed further with perjury proceedings against the petitioner-
husband.

8.      This Court has examined and given a thoughtful consideration
of the records; (i) summoned from the court of learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Etawah where an application under section 144
BNNS, 2023 was filed by the petitioner, (ii) the Matrimonial Case
No.2504 of 2023, pending adjudication before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj and proceedings initiated before
learned Family Judge on the petitioner’s application under section 24
of the HMA, 1955, (iii) the affidavits sworn by the petitioner, (iv)
order dated 15.9.2025 passed in Application under section 24 of
HMA, 1955 by learned Family Judge, Prayagraj, and the findings
recorded by the learned Judge in the last portion of para-4 of internal
page-6 of the order, (v) the account statements of respondent-wife
                                    15
                                                Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


with respect to the loan amount, (vi) contents of FIR No.0027 of
2023, under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with section
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Mahila Thana, Prayagraj, (vii) FIR
No.0043/2024, under sections 406, 506 IPC registered at P.S. Cantt.
Prayagraj, (viii) orders dated 18.03.2024, 19.04.2023 & 06.08.2024
passed by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.6041 of 2023, titled as Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and
3 others, (ix) order dated 24.10.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No.12641 of 2024 titled as
Neetu Singh v. Ranjeet Singh, (x) order dated 02.04.2024 passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4930 of 2024, titled as Ranjeet Singh
v. State of U.P. and 3 others, (xi) order dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024,
22.10.2024 and 03.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No.14344 of 2024 titled as Smt. Neetu Singh v.
State of U.P. and 3 others, (xii) order dated 14.11.2024 passed in
Transfer Application (Civil) No.883 of 2024, titled as Smt. Neetu
Singh v. Ranjeet Singh, (xiii) order dated 03.11.2025 passed in
Transfer Application (Criminal) No.517 of 2025 titled as Neetu Singh
v. State of U.P. and 2 others, and (xiv) affidavit of assets and liabilities
filed by the petitioner-husband before the learned Family Court,
Prayagraj.

9.    Admittedly, the petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with
respondent on 18.5.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and
ceremonies. The marriage could not succeed and both the parties
entered into litigation. The record further suggests that the respondent-
wife is a resident of Prayagraj and also got job in this Court as
Additional Private Secretary. The respondent-wife got transferred to
Lucknow Bench of this Court for the convenience of the petitioner-
husband and remained posted there for approximately 3 years.
                                   16
                                               Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


Subsequently, when the dispute arose, the respondent-wife got
transferred to Prayagraj, and started living at a rented accommodation.

9.1   The record further suggests that the respondent-wife initially
has taken a personal loan of Rs.11,50,000/- on her salary account from
SBI Bank branch, situated at Lucknow Bench of this Court. The loan
was subsequently paid by the respondent-wife. Thereafter, the
respondent-wife at the persistent request of her husband to save the
matrimonial life again taken a personal loan of Rs.13,56,000/- on
6.10.2022, and since then she is paying regular monthly installments
of Rs.26,020/- from her salary account.

9.2   The salary account statement of respondent-wife further reflects
that the petitioner-husband transferred the entire loan amount from
respondent-wife’s account no.38057767739 at SBI Branch High Court
to his account no.3444187141 at Central Bank of India and second
Account no.3499626709 through UPI. The complete details have not
been provided by the petitioner.

9.3   The Income Tax Return (ITR) of the petitioner-husband for the
Assessment Year 2023-2024 shows that total income of the petitioner
was Rs.4,70,540/-, and the petitioner has given a justification that the
petitioner was a civil contractor before joining the legal profession in
the year 2025, and therefore, filed ITR for the year 2023-2024. The
petitioner has two Bank Accounts at State Bank of India, bearing
Account No.3499626709 and 3948116745, as disclosed in affidavit of
assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has neither
annexed the last three years bank account statement nor furnished the
further details like name of the bank, branch and account number etc.
Thus, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner has concealed the
material source of income from the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Prayagraj.
                                      17
                                                   Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


9.4   It is also admitted that besides the criminal cases filed by the
respondent-wife against the petitioner, the writ petitions, and transfer
petitions were filed by both the parties. A divorce petition registered
as Matrimonial Case No.2504 of 2023 under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, was filed by the respondent-wife on 22.12.2023, and
since then the same is pending consideration before the learned Judge
Family Court, Prayagraj. The petitioner-husband had moved an
application dated 20.05.2025 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act for seeking maintenance, which was allowed vide order dated
15.9.2025 with the direction to the respondent-wife to pay Rs.5,000/-
per month to the petitioner and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

9.5   The respondent-wife preferred a petition under Article 227
No.12641 of 2024 seeking a direction to the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court to decide the Matrimonial Suit No.2504 of 2023 filed
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 within a fixed time
frame. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court placing reliance upon
Section 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, disposed of the petition
with the observation that the Act of 1955 itself provides for deciding
the petition within fixed period of time, therefore, there is no need for
issuing a separate direction to the learned Family Court. The Family
Court was directed to proceed in accordance with Section 21-B of the
Act, 1955. Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been
reproduced:

      “21B. Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions
      under the Act.—(1) The trial of a petition under this Act shall, so
      far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in
      respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its
      conclusion unless the court finds the adjournment of the trial
      beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be
      recorded.

      (2) Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as
      possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within
                                      18
                                                   Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


      six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the
      respondent.

      (3) Every appeal under this Act shall be heard as expeditiously as
      possible, and endeavour shall be made to conclude the hearing
      within three months from the date of service of notice of appeal on
      the respondent.”

9.6   It is also admitted position that the petitioner-husband again
instituted a fresh maintenance application under section 144 of BNSS,
2023 on 29.5.2025 before the learned Family Court, Etawah.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-wife approached this Court
through a Transfer Application (Criminal) No.517 of 2025 seeking
transfer of the case from learned Family Court Etawah to Prayagraj,
where both the parties to the litigation are residing, though separately.
This court vide order dated 3.11.2025 issued notice to the petitioner-
husband and stayed further proceedings of the aforesaid Maintenance
Case No.523 of 2025.

9.7   Immediately after filing the aforesaid Maintenance Case
No.523 of 2025, the petitioner-husband moved the present petition for
seeking direction to expedite the aforesaid maintenance proceeding
pending before the learned Family Judge, Etawah.

9.8   After examining the bank account statement of the respondent-
wife, it is also an admitted position that the respondent-wife had
firstly taken a personal loan of Rs.11,50,000/- on 10.11.2020 and after
its repayment again took personal loan of Rs.13,56,000/- on
6.10.2022, and since then she has been paying a monthly EMI of
Rs.26,020/- from her salary account. It is also admitted position that
the huge amount (almost entire amount) has been transferred by
petitioner into his personal account without knowledge and consent of
the respondent-wife. It is also admitted position that no land has been
purchased as promised by the petitioner-husband from the loan
amount. The examination of the bank account statement of the
                                   19
                                               Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


respondent-wife, it is revealed that on an average, a daily withdrawal
of Rs.5,000-10,000/- has been made and on many occasions
Rs.49,000/- have been withdrawn. As per respondent-wife’s claim, the
said withdrawal has been made by the petitioner-husband to lead a
luxurious life.

10.   This Court on numerous occasions has interacted with the
petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife, tried its level best to
convince the petitioner-husband to lead a healthy professional life
rather than keeping eye on the wife’s income. The wife’s body
language and demeanor reflected that she has been physically abused
and now seems to be mentally drained whereas the petitioner-husband
is a well built, shameless youth, who has no respect for the hard work,
sincerity, and loyalty. The petitioner-husband seems to come from a
comparatively well-off family whose uncle was earlier the Member of
Parliament and the mother was Ex-Pradhan of the village.

11.   The petitioner admitted to be in business of construction and
therefore filed a ITR of Rs.4,70,540/- for the year 2023-2024. He filed
an affidavit of assets and liabilities with incorrect details of source of
income. The supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-wife
suggests that; (i) the petitioner husband is a owner of two storied well
furnished house at Bharthana Chauraha, District Etawah, (ii) the
petitioner’s mother owns a vacant plot of land next to the petitioner’s
house, (iii) the petitioner’s mother Smt. Satyawati is an Ex-Village
Pradhan. She is an illiterate woman and the petitioner used to manage
all her finances and works as her representative, (iv) the petitioner
also has a joint family property at village Bijauli, Bakewar, District
Etawah and an agricultural farm in his name, (v) the petitioner’s elder
brother- Surjeet Singh also owns an agricultural farm in Etawah, (vi)
petitioner’s younger brother- Ajeet Singh is a government employee
and owns a well furnished two storied building at Bharthana
                                   20
                                               Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


Chauraha, District Etawah, and (vii) the petitioner is also a owner of a
bike and a car.

12.   Contrary to the petitioner’s family background, the respondent-
wife comes from a modest middle class family, her father is retired
from police services and her mother served in the health department
as a Group-D employee. The respondent-wife qualified exam for the
post of Additional Private Secretary on 14.5.2019 and joined her
services on 07.06.2019 and the marriage was solemnized on
18.5.2019. Notably, the marriage was solemnized within a week of
declaration of the final result of the respondent-wife.

13.   Further, the material placed on record reflects that the
proceedings under Section 144 BNSS, 2023 were stayed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the transfer application preferred by
the respondent-wife, and the petitioner-husband tried to conceal the
same fact from this Court. In such circumstances, the prayer for
expeditious disposal of a proceeding which presently stands stayed is
rendered infructuous and legally unsustainable. This Court cannot be
oblivious to the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent that
Section 144 BNSS, 2023 primarily contemplates grant of maintenance
to wives, children and parents. Further, in the present case the
petitioner-husband, being an able-bodied person and a practicing
Advocate, cannot seek to project himself as wholly dependent without
full and candid disclosure of his financial status, particularly in the
absence of an affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh
v. Neha (supra) with full and correct disclosure.

14.   The record further suggest that the petitioner has sworn the
affidavit stating that the contents of paragraphs nos.1 to 12 of affidavit
are true to his personal knowledge. The perusal of the affidavit reveals
the petitioner has concealed the fact that he has been getting monthly
                                         21
                                                     Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


maintenance of Rs.5000/- from the respondent-wife. It was also
concealed that the proceedings of the maintenance Case No.523 of
2025 filed under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 before the learned
Family Judge, Etawah have been stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court.

15.      Interestingly, the husband is disentitled to claim maintenance
from his wife under 144 of BNSS, 2023. The Madras High Court in
B. Clement v. Mcthel Thanga Annam9, observed as under:

         “To read and understand the scope of Section 125 of the Code of
         Criminal Procedure is not a tortuous task. The words are plain
         and the intention is explicit. The legislature would not have
         intended to clothe the husband with the right to claim maintenance
         from his wife under this Chapter. Though under some personal
         laws, the husband may be entitled to claim maintenance from the
         wife, it is certainly not possible under Section 125 of the Code of
         Criminal Procedure.”
16.      A reference can also be taken from a judgment passed the
Hyderabad High Court in Malleshwaramma v. G.S. Srinivasulu10, the
court observed as under:

         “It appears, the Parliament, in its wisdom, intentionally not
         included the words husband or spouse after the words his wife and
         preceding the words unable to maintain in clause (a) of Sub-
         section (1) of Section 125 Cr.PC; therefore, a husband is not
         entitled to file application under Section 125 Cr.PC claiming
         maintenance from the wife.”
17.      The High Court is not a window shopping forum, and the
petitioner has approached this Court numerous times with incorrect
and misleading facts and swearing false affidavits in support of the
petitions and applications. The conduct of the petitioner in
suppressing material facts and pursuing parallel remedies, while
seeking equitable relief, disentitles him from any indulgence by this
Court.

18.      So far as the issue of compensatory cost is concerned, and the
judgments placed reliance by Ms. Vijeta Singh, the common thread
9 [2012 SCC OnLine Mad 1970]
10 [2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 182]
                                     22
                                                 Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


running through all the judgments is the reiteration of three salutary
principles; (i) cost should ordinarily follow the event, (ii) realistic cost
should be awarded keeping in view the ever increasing litigation
expenses, and (iii) the cost should serve the purpose for curbing
frivolous and vexatious litigation. The words of Justice Browen in
Cropper v. Smith (1884)11 aptly resonates strongly with an issue for
determination of the compensatory cost-“I found in my experience
that there is one panacea which heals every sore in litigation and that
is costs”.

19.     The traditional framework of ‘litigation costs’ in law has
largely been confined to the reimbursement of quantifiable losses or
litigation expenses. However, this narrow understanding becomes
inadequate when applied to the evolving realities of marital
relationships, particularly in cases involving economic abuse. Where
one spouse systematically depletes the financial resources of the other
under the guise of marital authority or expectation, the injury inflicted
transcends mere monetary loss.

20.     Economic abuse within marriage operates in insidious ways-
through control over income, coercive appropriation of assets, and the
gradual erosion of financial independence. The aggrieved spouse,
often acting in good faith and with the expectation of marital stability,
may tolerate such conduct until the harm becomes irreversible. In
such circumstances, limiting compensatory costs to direct financial
loss fails to capture the full extent of the injustice.

21.     A young professional woman, who, after qualifying for the
competitive exam, secures a government job, and whose financial and
personal resources have been systematically depleted by her husband,
may initially endure such deprivation in the expectation that the
marital relationship will eventually stabilize and fulfill its intended
11 [(1884) 29 Ch. D. 700]
                                   23
                                              Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


purpose of mutual support. However, where this expectation is
frustrated, and the relationship instead becomes a vehicle for sustained
economic and emotional exploitation, the law cannot remain
indifferent.

22.   In such circumstances, the imposition of financial liability-
whether through maintenance, compensation, or restitution- serves a
legitimate legal purpose. It is not merely punitive, but corrective:
aimed at restoring, as far as possible, the economic position and
dignity of the aggrieved spouse. This aligns with established
jurisprudential principles that recognize marriage not as a license for
exploitation, but as a partnership grounded in equity, good faith, and
mutual obligation.

23.   Jurisprudentially, there is a compelling case for expanding the
scope of compensatory costs to include elements of restitution and
equitable rebalancing. The doctrine of unjust enrichment provides that
no person should benefit at another’s expense without lawful
justification. Similarly, the principle of restitutio-in-integrum seeks to
restore the injured party to the position they would have occupied but
for the wrongdoing. When applied to marital exploitation, these
principles demand a broader, more nuanced approach. The law,
therefore, intervenes not only to redress individual harm but also to
uphold the normative ideal that justice within intimate relationships is
neither illusory nor optional.

24.   For the aggrieved individual, the claim to compensation is not
merely a financial demand- it reflects a deeper conception of justice as
something inviolable and worthy of vindication. Where exploitation
has been normalized under the guise of marital duty, legal remedies
serve to reaffirm that such expectations are neither lawful nor morally
defensible.
                                   24
                                                Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


25.   Such an approach aligns with the constitutional commitment to
dignity and equality, ensuring that legal remedies remain responsive to
lived realities. Ultimately, the law must evolve to recognize that
justice within marriage is not merely symbolic but materially
enforceable.

26.   From a jurisprudential perspective, the gap between the
litigation costs and compensatory costs highlights the tension between
formal legal structures and substantive justice. Legal realism reminds
us that law must respond to social realities rather than remain
confined to abstract doctrines. In the context of marital exploitation,
this requires a shift from a purely needs-based framework to one that
incorporates accountability and restitution.

27.   Courts must therefore move beyond viewing marriage as a
private sphere insulated from rigorous legal scrutiny. Instead, they
should recognize that power imbalances within marriage can give rise
to legally cognizable harm. By expanding the scope of remedies to
include compensatory and restitutionary elements, the law can better
address the full spectrum of injury suffered by the aggrieved spouse.
Such an evolution would not undermine the institution of marriage;
rather, it would reinforce its foundational values by ensuring that it
cannot be misused as a tool for exploitation.

28.   The pursuit of justice within intimate relationships presents
unique challenges for legal systems. Unlike commercial transactions,
marital   relationships   are   characterized       by      trust,       emotional
interdependence, and informal arrangements. However, these very
features can create conditions for exploitation, particularly when one
party exercises disproportionate control over financial resources.

29.   Equity, as a jurisprudential concept, offers a pathway forward.
Rooted in principles of fairness and conscience, equity allows courts
                                   25
                                              Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


to tailor remedies to the specific circumstances of each case. In
situations of economic abuse, this may involve not only compensating
for direct losses but also addressing the broader consequences of
dependency and dis-empowerment. This aligns with the moral
intuition that justice requires both compensation for the victim and
disgorgement from the wrongdoer.

30.   In conclusion, the evolution of legal principles in this area is not
merely desirable but necessary. As societal understandings of
marriage continue to change, so too must the law adapt to ensure that
justice remains both relevant and effective. In the context of the lived
realities of 2026, courts are required to adopt a proactive and
progressive approach in adjudicating such matters, ensuring that legal
remedies evolve in step with contemporary forms of harm and
exploitation.

31.   Based on above said deliberations, this Court cannot lose sight
of the fact that the respondent-wife on the insistence of petitioner’s
husband, taken personal loan twice (Rs.11,50,000/- on 10.11.2020 &
Rs.13,56,000/- on 06.10.2022) against her salary account. After
foreclosure of the first loan, the second loan was immediately availed,
and the respondent-wife has been paying regular installment of
Rs.26,020/- per month, and will pay till October, 2028, besides a
maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the husband, and Rs.10000/-
was paid towards litigation cost. Needless to mention, the entire loan
amount has been unauthorizedly misused by the petitioner-husband as
reflected from the pattern of withdrawal of the amount and some
transaction reflects a large amount has been transferred through UPI
and other similar modes.

32.   In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the present petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India lacks bona-fides and does not warrant
                                     26
                                                 Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vests with this Court. Accordingly,
the equity demands the present petition is dismissed with the
compensatory cost of Rs.15,00,000/- to be given to the respondent-
wife within six weeks from today by way of demand draft. The
demand draft be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court,
who shall in turn, hand over the same to the respondent-wife.

32.1 The justification for imposing a heavy cost rooted in the logic
emerged from undisputed facts and the jurisprudential deliberations
discussed herein above.

32.2 Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

33.    The observation made herein above have been made to decide
the present petition and shall have no bearing on the case(s) pending
trial before the learned Principal Family Court, Prayagraj or any other
Court. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court shall decide the
case(s) on its merit in accordance with law.

Further Directions:

34.    The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction vests with this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers this
Court with supervisory jurisdiction over all courts within their
territorial jurisdiction. It would be in the interest of justice and right, if
the pending litigation between the parties be concluded at the earliest,
in a free and fair manner by upholding an opportunity of hearing to
both the parties, and thus following directions are issued.

34.1 The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj is
directed to expedite the proceedings arising out of Matrimonial Case
No.2504 of 2023, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, titled Smt.
Neetu Singh v. Ranjeet Singh and to decide the same in accordance
with the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Matters
                                      27
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


Under Article 227 No.12641 of 2024, titled as ‘Neetu Singh v. Ranjeet
Singh’, vide order dated 24.10.2024.

34.2 The proceedings be decided in view of the time period
mentioned in Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No
unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties, the
application(s) of personal exemption shall be decided by recording a
reason, and in case repetitive personal exemption applications are
filed, the same shall be decided by keeping in mind the objective of
Section 21-B of HMA.

34.3 In case, the learned Advocates for the petitioner creates
commotion in the Court and obstruct the course of justice by raising
voice inside the court or creating an atmosphere not conducive to the
effective and unbiased trial of the case, the proceedings of the case
shall be immediately commenced with in-camera proceedings. In such
case, only one learned Advocate along with an assisting learned
Advocate shall be allowed inside the court room from both the sides.
Further, in case of non-availability of the Advocates, the learned
Family Court shall immediately make an alternative arrangement by
appointing an Advocate from the panel of legal Aid Counsel. On such
appointment, such legal aid counsel shall step into the shoes of the
learned counsel for the petitioner so that the learned court may
proceed with the trial effectively.

34.4 Having regard to the nature of allegations and counter-
allegations between the parties and in order to ensure a fair and
uninfluenced adjudication, it is directed that the evidence of the
parties, including cross-examination, shall be conducted, as far as
practicable, in-camera in terms of Section 11 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, so as to preserve the dignity and privacy of the parties. No
person other than the parties, their duly engaged counsel and
authorized Court staff shall remain present during such proceedings.
                                   28
                                              Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


34.5 As the respondent-wife has filed an application for recall and
review of the order dated 15.9.2025, passed by learned Principal
Judge, Family Court Prayagraj, under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage
Act in Matrimonial Case No.2504 of 2023, titled as Smt. Neetu v.
Ranjeet Singh, the same may be decided within four weeks after
receipt of a copy of this order.

34.6 The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, is directed to ensure
that sufficient and appropriate security arrangements are made
available to the respondent–wife within the Court premises to
maintain a secure and congenial environment for the fair and smooth
conduct of the proceedings.

34.7 The learned Principal Judge, Family Court shall further submit
a quarterly status report to the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court,
apprising him of the progress of the case, with a view to ensuring its
expeditious and effective disposal strictly in accordance with law, who
in turn shall place the same on record of this case.

35.    The justification of giving such a direction is that this Court
has noticed commotion inside and outside the Court by a group of
learned Advocates during the hearing of this Case. The petitioner kept
on replacing his Advocates during the hearing of this case and one
learned Senior Counsel sought his discharge from the case during the
hearing, and left the court in middle of the arguments. This Court is
trained and possessed with wisdom to defuse such a situation as and
when arises. This Court understands that the learned trial court judges
work on a different footings and in a different atmosphere. The facts
and circumstances of this case necessitated this Court to pass the
aforesaid directions.

36.   This Court is of the prima-facie view that the petitioner has
approached the learned Family Courts with a concealment of material
                                   29
                                              Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


facts, false averments on oath, and therefore, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Prayagraj to call for an inquiry, at an appropriate stage, to examine the
question of initiation of appropriate proceedings in accordance with
law against the petitioner-husband for filing false affidavit and
concealing material particulars. The respondent-wife shall be at liberty
to file the certified copy of the petitions, affidavits or any other
material as she deemed it appropriate before the learned Family
Judge, Prayagraj for its record and reference. It’s made clear that the
learned Judge, Family Court shall apply its independent mind before
taking cognizance of the issue connected hereto.

Further Directions for Realization of the Costs

37.   In case, the petitioner-husband failed to deposit the cost by way
of demand draft with the Registrar General of this Court, on an
application of the respondent-wife, the District Magistrate, Etawah
shall recover the same as an arrears of land revenue within a period of
three months on expiry of the time granted to the petitioner.

37.1 Immediately after receipt of a copy of this order, the District
Magistrate, Etawah shall forward a copy of this order to the concerned
Sub-Registrar in whose jurisdiction, the petitioner’s properties are
situated. The Sub-Registrar shall ensure that no third party interest
shall be created by the petitioner-husband and no sale transaction shall
be permitted from today till the recovery of cost.

37.2 The District Magistrate, Etawah shall also constitute a
committee to inquire into the movable and immovable assets owned
and possessed by the petitioner immediately after receipt of a copy of
this order, for record and compliance of the terms of this order.

38.   The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to transmit forthwith a
copy of this order to (i) the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts,
                                                                          30
                                                                                     Matters Under Article 227 No.12198 of 2025


                                        Prayagraj & Etawah, (ii) District Magistrate, Etawah, and (iii) S.S.P.
                                        Prayagraj for providing security, if necessary, to enable the respondent
                                        wife to appear before the leaned Family Court.

                                        39.   The learned Registrar General of this Court shall ensure that the
                                        entire record pertaining to this case be scanned and kept for future
                                        reference.

                                        April 23, 2026
                                        Anil K. Sharma
                                                                                            (Vinod Diwakar, J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad