Smt Neha Jain v. Party

1. Heard Mr. Amit Krishna, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2022 (Smt. Neha Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Others), under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "D.V. Act") arising out of order dated 9th September, 2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Court No.1 (C.A.W.), Muzaafar Nagar on application nos. 52Ka/1 to 52Ka/3 filed by opposite party no.3 in Case No. 19 of 2018 (Neha Jain Vs. Bharat Jain & Others), under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 12 of D.V. Act.

3. The brief facts as cropped up from the records of the present criminal revision are that initially the revisionist has filed a complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, which was registered as Case No. 19 of 2018 (Neha Jain Vs. Bharat Jain & Others) and during the pendency of the said case, opposite party no.2 has filed an application for a direction upon the revisionist to furnish her monthly income, bank details and other benefits which she is availing on the ground that she is working as Senior H.R. Executive in Dayal Infosystem Private Ltd./Dayal Group Partapur, Meerut and her monthly salary is Rs. 30,000/-. The bank account of the revisionist is maintained at I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Branch Ved Byaspuri, Meerut bearing Saving Bank Account No. 407801500800. Apart from getting salary, she is also receiving other monetary benefits from the said company. The P.F. Account Number of the revisionist is M.R.M.R.T. 00116220000011173, U.A.N. No. 2 CRLR No. 561 of 2024

4. The application filed by the opposite party no.2 has been allowed by the trial court vide order dated 9th September, 2022 against which the revisionist filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2022 (Smt. Neha Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Others), under Section 29 of the D.V. Act and the same has been dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated 20th January, 2024, hence the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court while allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 being application nos. 52Ka/1 to 52Ka/3 vide order dated 9th September, 2022, has wrongly interpreted Section 91 Cr.P.C. as the same does not apply in the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act, which are civil proceedings. He further submits that Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for roving or fishing enquiry. It was never the legislative intent of enacting Section 91 Cr. P.C. that court can summon an accused to produce any incriminating materials which may be used against him in trial. Learned counsel for the revisionist, thus, submits that the trial court has no power to direct the revisionist to get the details of her monthly income, movable property and immovable property in the form of bank statement of accounts provided to the trial court. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 8th September, 2015 passed in Criminal O.P. No. 30258 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012 along with other connected matters in the case of S. Sugavanam Vs. K.N. Subramania Shah. and also the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated 21st August, 2025 in CRR 396 of 2025 along with connected case in the case of Ram Kishan Mittal Vs. The State of West Bengal.

6. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that since the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and the same has also been rejected by the trial court, the instant application filed by opposite party no.2 is not maintainable.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the trial court in passing the impugned order dated 9th September, 2022 allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 has committed gross error, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other-hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned interim orders passed by the appellate court and the trial court so as to 3 CRLR No. 561 of 2024 warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

9. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that it is the duty of the every party to furnish details of his/her income or liabilities including the bank statements of accounts and the trial court while passing the impugned order dated 9th September, 2022 has rightly directing the revisionist to furnish the aforesaid details, which she has not furnished the same before the trial court

10. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision including the impugned orders.

11. From the impugned order dated 9th September, 2022, this Court finds that the trial court has only directed the revisionist to furnish her bank details including the statement of accounts etc. and from the said order, no prejudice has been caused to the revisionist in any manner.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has held that the parties before the court are under legal obligation to furnish their details of Income, like name of employer where he or she is working, his/her designation and his/her income, bank statement of accounts, salary slips or salary certificates, Income Tax Returns, Income from other sources, such as rent, interest, shares, dividends, capital gains, FDRs, Post office deposits, mutual funds, stocks, debentures, agriculture, or business, if any, along with TDS etc. for ascertaining the correct income of the party concerned and also for awarding amount of maintenance.

13. Mere a direction upon the revisionist to furnish her bank statement of accounts including the statement of her Provident Fund Accounts in order to to find out the correct and exact amount of maintenance which is to be decided, cannot prejudice the rights of the revisionist in any manner. Moreover, the impugned order dated 9th September, 2022 is interlocutory in nature and also the final judgment has been passed by the trial court under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The impugned order dated 9th September, 2022 being interlocutory cannot be said to be illegal, so as to warrant any interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

14. The appellate court while passing the impugned order dated 20th January, 2024 rejecting the appeal filed by the revisionist against the order dated 9th September, 2022 has categorically recorded that the revisionist has tried to conceal/hide her educational qualifications income and bank details, which are mandatory for both the parties to furnish the same before the trial court. 4 CRLR No. 561 of 2024

15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the cases of S. Sugavanam and Ram Kishan Mittal (Supras) are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the said judgments the High Court concerned has not held that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not apply in the proceedings under the D.V. Act. Section 91 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that the court has ample power to summon any records, which are relevant material to decide any issue pending before it.

16. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since the opposite party no.2 has already made an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the same has also been rejected, the instant application of the opposite party no.2 is not maintainable, is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the applications filed by the opposite party no.2 have been filed for different purposes, therefore, the instant application was maintainable.

17. Since the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders, this Court declines to interfere with the same.

18. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

19.There shall be no order as to costs. October 29, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.)

1. Heard Mr. Amit Krishna, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2022 (Smt. Neha Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Others), under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "D.V. Act") arising out of order dated 9th September, 2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Court No.1 (C.A.W.), Muzaafar Nagar on application nos. 52Ka/1 to 52Ka/3 filed by opposite party no.3 in Case No. 19 of 2018 (Neha Jain Vs. Bharat Jain & Others), under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 12 of D.V. Act.

3. The brief facts as cropped up from the records of the present criminal revision are that initially the revisionist has filed a complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, which was registered as Case No. 19 of 2018 (Neha Jain Vs. Bharat Jain & Others) and during the pendency of the said case, opposite party no.2 has filed an application for a direction upon the revisionist to furnish her monthly income, bank details and other benefits which she is availing on the ground that she is working as Senior H.R. Executive in Dayal Infosystem Private Ltd./Dayal Group Partapur, Meerut and her monthly salary is Rs. 30,000/-. The bank account of the revisionist is maintained at I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Branch Ved Byaspuri, Meerut bearing Saving Bank Account No. 407801500800. Apart from getting salary, she is also receiving other monetary benefits from the said company. The P.F. Account Number of the revisionist is M.R.M.R.T. 00116220000011173, U.A.N. No. 2 CRLR No. 561 of 2024

4. The application filed by the opposite party no.2 has been allowed by the trial court vide order dated 9th September, 2022 against which the revisionist filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2022 (Smt. Neha Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Others), under Section 29 of the D.V. Act and the same has been dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated 20th January, 2024, hence the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court while allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 being application nos. 52Ka/1 to 52Ka/3 vide order dated 9th September, 2022, has wrongly interpreted Section 91 Cr.P.C. as the same does not apply in the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act, which are civil proceedings. He further submits that Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for roving or fishing enquiry. It was never the legislative intent of enacting Section 91 Cr. P.C. that court can summon an accused to produce any incriminating materials which may be used against him in trial. Learned counsel for the revisionist, thus, submits that the trial court has no power to direct the revisionist to get the details of her monthly income, movable property and immovable property in the form of bank statement of accounts provided to the trial court. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 8th September, 2015 passed in Criminal O.P. No. 30258 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012 along with other connected matters in the case of S. Sugavanam Vs. K.N. Subramania Shah. and also the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated 21st August, 2025 in CRR 396 of 2025 along with connected case in the case of Ram Kishan Mittal Vs. The State of West Bengal.

6. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that since the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and the same has also been rejected by the trial court, the instant application filed by opposite party no.2 is not maintainable.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the trial court in passing the impugned order dated 9th September, 2022 allowing the application of the opposite party no.2 has committed gross error, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other-hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned interim orders passed by the appellate court and the trial court so as to 3 CRLR No. 561 of 2024 warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

9. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that it is the duty of the every party to furnish details of his/her income or liabilities including the bank statements of accounts and the trial court while passing the impugned order dated 9th September, 2022 has rightly directing the revisionist to furnish the aforesaid details, which she has not furnished the same before the trial court

10. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision including the impugned orders.

11. From the impugned order dated 9th September, 2022, this Court finds that the trial court has only directed the revisionist to furnish her bank details including the statement of accounts etc. and from the said order, no prejudice has been caused to the revisionist in any manner.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has held that the parties before the court are under legal obligation to furnish their details of Income, like name of employer where he or she is working, his/her designation and his/her income, bank statement of accounts, salary slips or salary certificates, Income Tax Returns, Income from other sources, such as rent, interest, shares, dividends, capital gains, FDRs, Post office deposits, mutual funds, stocks, debentures, agriculture, or business, if any, along with TDS etc. for ascertaining the correct income of the party concerned and also for awarding amount of maintenance.

13. Mere a direction upon the revisionist to furnish her bank statement of accounts including the statement of her Provident Fund Accounts in order to to find out the correct and exact amount of maintenance which is to be decided, cannot prejudice the rights of the revisionist in any manner. Moreover, the impugned order dated 9th September, 2022 is interlocutory in nature and also the final judgment has been passed by the trial court under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The impugned order dated 9th September, 2022 being interlocutory cannot be said to be illegal, so as to warrant any interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

14. The appellate court while passing the impugned order dated 20th January, 2024 rejecting the appeal filed by the revisionist against the order dated 9th September, 2022 has categorically recorded that the revisionist has tried to conceal/hide her educational qualifications income and bank details, which are mandatory for both the parties to furnish the same before the trial court. 4 CRLR No. 561 of 2024

15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the cases of S. Sugavanam and Ram Kishan Mittal (Supras) are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the said judgments the High Court concerned has not held that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not apply in the proceedings under the D.V. Act. Section 91 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that the court has ample power to summon any records, which are relevant material to decide any issue pending before it.

16. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since the opposite party no.2 has already made an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the same has also been rejected, the instant application of the opposite party no.2 is not maintainable, is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the applications filed by the opposite party no.2 have been filed for different purposes, therefore, the instant application was maintainable.

17. Since the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders, this Court declines to interfere with the same.

18. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

19.There shall be no order as to costs. October 29, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.)