SONIA GUPTA ALIAS SMT SONIA VARSHNEY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8452 of 2025

Sonia Gupta Alias Smt Sonia Varshney And Another
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)           :   Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :   Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, G.A.

Court No. - 87
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party no. 2, learned A.G.A. representing the State opposite party no. 1 and
perused the record.

2. Revisionist Sonia Gupta alias Smt. Sonia Varshney and Km. Astha Gupta
have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision
challenging the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 (corrected vide order
dated 07.11.2025) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj
(hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 451
of 2025, Sonia Gupta v. Mukul Gupta, whereby the Trial Court rejected the
application 3Kh, which was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the
recall application, and application 5kh which was filed seeking to recall the
order dated 09.12.2010 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Maintenance
Case No. 365 of 2002.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has
been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary,
illegal and has been passed in a mechanical manner, without considering the
reasons furnished for the delay in filing the recall application. It has been
submitted that opposite party no. 2 stopped making payment of the interim
maintenance amount of Rs. 28000/- since June, 2019, on account of which
the revisionist could not contact with her counsel before the High Court,
who subsequently died on 23.09.2021. It is further submitted that the
revisionist came to know about the order dated 09.12.2010 only in May,
                                                          CRLR No. 8452 of 2025
                                2


2023. The learned Trial Court failed to take the aforesaid circumstances into
consideration while passing the impugned order and held that the present
restoration application has been filed after delay of almost 15 years. In the
aforesaid premise, a prayer has been made that the present criminal revision
is liable to be allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist had
instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein the Trial Court
passed an interim order. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party no. 2
approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
being Criminal Misc. Application No. 26399 of 2007. During the said
proceedings, this Court passed an interim order directing opposite party no.
2 to pay an aggregate sum of Rs. 28,000/- per month to the revisionist
towards interim maintenance. Opposite party no. 2 regularly paid the
aforesaid amount till May, 2019. However, thereafter, he stopped making
payment of the interim maintenance. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.05.2022.

5. It is further submitted that upon coming to know that the proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed, the revisionist moved an
application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for recovery of
the arrears of interim maintenance. In the said proceedings, the Trial Court
summoned the original record from the record room. However, the same
could not be traced. Consequently, the revisionist could not file the
restoration application at that stage. It is submitted that after the original
record was received, the revisionist filed the restoration application, which
has been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order without taking
into consideration the aforesaid facts. It is, thus, contended that the
impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the relevant
facts and is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be
set aside.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf
of opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the present Criminal Revision
and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
submitted that no interim maintenance order was passed by the Trial Court
in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the said proceedings, the
employer of opposite party no. 2 was summoned along with his salary slip.
Aggrieved by the said summoning order, opposite party no. 2 approached
                                                            CRLR No. 8452 of 2025
                                 3


this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein this
Court directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 28,000/- per month in aggregate, to
the revisionist towards interim maintenance. Thereafter, no further effective
proceedings could take place in the matter. Opposite party no. 2 duly
complied with the aforesaid interim order and regularly paid Rs. 28,000/- per
month to the revisionist till May, 2019.

7. It is further submitted that the parent case, i.e. the proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., was itself dismissed for want of prosecution on
09.12.2010. Despite having received interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.
28,000/- per month, the revisionist did not pursue the parent proceedings
and, according to learned counsel, deliberately allowed the same to remain
unattended with a view to continue receiving interim maintenance. It is
contended that there is nothing on record to explain the inordinate delay of
about 15 years in seeking restoration of the proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the
assertion of the revisionist that after dismissal of the proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, she could not contact her counsel
before this Court, is wholly misconceived, as the counsel appearing before
this Court had no concern with the proceedings pending before the Trial
Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the conduct of the revisionist
demonstrates that she was primarily interested in receiving interim
maintenance and did not diligently pursue the parent proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.

9. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 next submitted that the
revisionist has already instituted another application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, being Case No. 409 of 2024. If the Trial
Court finds the revisionist entitled to maintenance, the same may be awarded
in the said proceedings. It is further submitted that seeking restoration of the
earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while simultaneously
pursuing a fresh application under the same provision, amounts to pursuing
two parallel cases for the same relief. No valid reason has been disclosed as
to why the revisionist seeks to pursue two simultaneous proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. while unwanted multiplicity of litigation is not
permissible.

10. It is, thus, contended that, in view of the aforesaid facts and
                                                                                                 CRLR No. 8452 of 2025
                                                                      4


                                    circumstances, the present Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable
                                    to be dismissed.

                                    11. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
                                    parties and upon perusal of the record, we find that the revisionist has failed
                                    to furnish any cogent or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in
                                    filing the restoration application. The reasons assigned in the application
                                    under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, do not
                                    constitute sufficient cause to explain the delay. In particular, the plea that the
                                    revisionist could not approach the Trial Court on account of her being
                                    required to look after her daughter does not, in the facts and circumstances
                                    of the case, furnish a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay.

                                    12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any good or
                                    sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. The present Criminal
                                    Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

                                    13. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                    September 16, 2026
                                    Brijesh Maurya
                                                                                        (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




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