Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT. PRITI SAXENAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The revision is dismissed.

Summary

The revisionist, Smt. Priti Saxena, sought discharge under Section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C. in a criminal case under Section 494 IPC alleging bigamy. She claimed her prior divorce was finalized on 28‑08‑2015 and that she had informed her new husband, but she failed to produce any divorce decree. The opposite party contended that she concealed the existence of the prior marriage, did not disclose a pending First Appeal (No. 717 of 2012) which had been dismissed in default, and continued to receive maintenance from her first husband. The Court examined the submissions and found that the revisionist had not furnished the divorce order, had concealed material facts, and had no bona‑fide appearance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision, upholding the rejection of the discharge application.

Issues considered

  • Whether the revisionist’s discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. should be allowed despite lack of proof of divorce.
  • Whether concealment of prior marriage and pending appeal constitutes grounds to reject the discharge.
  • Whether the facts constitute an offence under Section 494 IPC (bigamy).

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bigamy
  • Section 494 IPC
  • discharge application
  • concealment
  • maintenance
  • criminal revision
  • CrPC 245(2)

Judgment

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4063 of 2025

Smt. Priti Saxena
                                                                      .....Revisionist(s)
                                         Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                            .....Opposite
                                                                                  Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Awaneesha Kumar, Narendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Shivam Shukla,
                                Sushil Kumar Shukla

Court No. - 87
                         HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for opposite
party no. 2, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the discharge application
of the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected in Case No. 21511 of
2017 (Sachin Narula vs. Smt. Priti Saxena), under Section 494 IPC, Police Station
Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the marriage of the revisionist
was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on 19.42015, whereas the previous divorce
of the revisionist had already taken place on 28.08.2015, which had been informed to
opposite party no. 2 by the revisionist prior to the marriage. It is further submitted that
the information regarding the divorce was provided on the basis of a document on a
Rs. 10/- stamp paper. However, the revisionist has never presented or shown any
document of the divorce order passed by any competent court of law.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has contended that charges were framed in
this case on 12.12.2025. The revisionist has committed concealment regarding her
marriage with opposite party no. 2. She did not provide any copy of the divorce order
passed by the competent court of law to opposite party no. 2. She also concealed the
fact that she had herself filed First Appeal No. 717 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court,
which was dismissed in default on 02.08.2019. It is pointed out that the revisionist had
obtained an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance from her first husband
until 2019.

5. Learned counsel further contended that First Appeal No. 717 of 2012 was never
withdrawn by the revisionist before this Hon'ble Court. It was dismissed in default due
to non-prosecution by the revisionist. Hence, it may be presumed to be pending in the
eyes of law, as it could be restored through an application for restoration.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, the Court finds force in the contentions of learned counsel for
opposite party no. 2. The revisionist has never provided the copy of the judgment and
order of the divorce petition to opposite party no. 2. She did not inform opposite party
no. 2 about the fact that she had filed the aforementioned First Appeal. She also
                                                                                                   CRLR No. 4063 of 2025
                                                                       2

                                    concealed this fact. Moreover, she never filed any application for withdrawal before
                                    this Hon'ble Court, and her first appeal was dismissed in default, not as withdrawn on
                                    her own application. There is no bona fide appearance on behalf of the revisionist.

                                    7. In view of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the revision is liable to be
                                    dismissed, and it is dismissed accordingly.

                                    March 16, 2026
                                    M. Tarik
                                                                                                    (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.