RITU RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1043 of 2024

Ritu Rai
                                                                        .....Revisionist(s)
                                         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

Court No. - 86
                        HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

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

2. 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.

3. 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:-

     "चूँकि वादिनी ने जो विपक्षी की आय 100000/- रूपये मासिक बतायी है, उसका
     कोई साक्ष्य दाखिल नहीं किया जा सका है। इसके विपरीत प्रतिवादी ने अपने कथनों
     को साबित किया है। चूँकि वादिनी के नाम में जो भिन्नताएं हैं, उनसे यह स्पष्ट नहीं है
     कि वादिनी द्वारा न्यायालय में स्वच्छ हाथों से आया गया है। जब तक माननीय उच्च
     न्यायालय या किसी अन्य सक्षम न्यायालय का कोई आदेश नहीं किया जाता है,
     तब तक विपक्षी को वादिनी के भरण पोषण के लिये आदेशित किया जाना
     उचित प्रतीत नहीं होता है। अतः विपक्षी धारा-125 दं०प्र०सं० के सीमा विस्तार के
     अन्तर्गत प्रार्थिनी के भरण-पोषण के लिये दायित्वाधीन नहीं है।"
                                                          CRLR No. 1043 of 2024
                                2

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

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.

8. 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,
                                                                                            CRLR No. 1043 of 2024
                                                                     3

                                    as contained in para 7 of this order.

                                    9. 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.

                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Gurpreet Singh
                                                                                             (Harvir Singh,J.)




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