Smt. Swati and another v. Monti), under Section

2. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with prayer to set aside the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Meerut, in Maintenance Case No. 432 of 2020 (Smt. Swati and another Vs. Monti), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, whereby maintenance has been dismissed on the ground that the revisionist has received Rs.7 Lakh of lumpsum amount pursuant to the compromise dated 19.02.2021. the application

4. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that a compromise alleged to have taken place between the parties on 19.02.2021 but actually no compromise at all took place in between the parties on 19.02.2021 as the stamp paper on which the alleged compromise took place, was purchased way back on 15.10.2019 but the trial court by ignoring this aspect of the matter, rejected the application, therefore, the document showing compromise is completely a fake document. Learned counsel further submits that the sign of first party i.e. revisionist is also fake. It is also submitted that the witnesses of compromise 2 CRLR No. 1041 of 2024 which have been produced i.e. Alok Kumar also not reliable, who in his examination-in-chief at page-101 of the paper book has stated that he along with his uncle had signed the compromise whereas at page-105 of the paper book in his cross-examination he denied and stated that on whose presence this compromise took place, he did not know. He does not know, who got this compromise settled, only he was present there, even he does not know on whose behalf this compromise was got settled, thus, this witness seems to be unreliable.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the amount of Rs.7 Lakh has not been mentioned to which mode it has been given to the revisionist no.1 i.e. either through cheque, bank draft or transferred through NEFT in whose account but actually the said amount has not been received by the revisionist no.1 till date.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 stated that the compromise is genuine and the stamp paper on which the compromise was transcribed/took place, was also purchased by the revisionist herself and she signed over it as first party and her signature has also been tallied with her signature made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which goes to show that the revisionist herself has received Rs.7 Lakh as permanent alimony from the opposite party no.2.

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 05.02.2024, it is admitted case of the parties that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and the entire finding of the trial court is based on the compromise, which has been challenged before this Court through the order impugned. Perusal of record, it appears that the compromise took place on 19.02.2021 but to prove this compromise both the witnesses have not been produced before the trial court. One witness, who has been examined as D.W.2-Alok Kumar, in his examination-in-chief at page no.101 of the paper book has stated that he and his uncle have made their signatures on the compromise whereas at page no.105 of the paper book, he denied and stated that the compromise was not settled by him but only he went there. In this way it is clear that actually he has also given confusing statement. 3 CRLR No. 1041 of 2024

8. It is also alleged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the stamp paper was purchased on 15.10.2019 at the time when the revisionist gave birth to her son Shaurya, who has been arrayed as revisionist no.2 in the instant criminal revision, later it was misused by the opposite party no.2 by way of preparing fake compromise dated 19.02.2021. Although, this fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no amount of Rs.7 Lakh was given to the revisionist by any cheque or draft or in any account.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has not examined the correctness of the alleged compromise dated 19.02.2021, in letter in spirit, but the finding of the trial court is solely based on the said compromise, which appears to be forged one, therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the trial court being perverse, against the fact and law, deserves to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Meerut, in Maintenance Case No. 432 of 2020 (Smt. Swati and another Vs. Monti), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the same afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned to adduce their respective evidence, specifically, on the alleged compromise dated 19.02.2021.

11. The trial court is expected to decide the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

12. It is made clear that the trial court would be at liberty to decide the matter afresh by taking additional evidence, if required, without being influenced by any of the observations made herinabove. September 17, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with prayer to set aside the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Meerut, in Maintenance Case No. 432 of 2020 (Smt. Swati and another Vs. Monti), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, whereby maintenance has been dismissed on the ground that the revisionist has received Rs.7 Lakh of lumpsum amount pursuant to the compromise dated 19.02.2021. the application

4. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that a compromise alleged to have taken place between the parties on 19.02.2021 but actually no compromise at all took place in between the parties on 19.02.2021 as the stamp paper on which the alleged compromise took place, was purchased way back on 15.10.2019 but the trial court by ignoring this aspect of the matter, rejected the application, therefore, the document showing compromise is completely a fake document. Learned counsel further submits that the sign of first party i.e. revisionist is also fake. It is also submitted that the witnesses of compromise 2 CRLR No. 1041 of 2024 which have been produced i.e. Alok Kumar also not reliable, who in his examination-in-chief at page-101 of the paper book has stated that he along with his uncle had signed the compromise whereas at page-105 of the paper book in his cross-examination he denied and stated that on whose presence this compromise took place, he did not know. He does not know, who got this compromise settled, only he was present there, even he does not know on whose behalf this compromise was got settled, thus, this witness seems to be unreliable.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the amount of Rs.7 Lakh has not been mentioned to which mode it has been given to the revisionist no.1 i.e. either through cheque, bank draft or transferred through NEFT in whose account but actually the said amount has not been received by the revisionist no.1 till date.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 stated that the compromise is genuine and the stamp paper on which the compromise was transcribed/took place, was also purchased by the revisionist herself and she signed over it as first party and her signature has also been tallied with her signature made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which goes to show that the revisionist herself has received Rs.7 Lakh as permanent alimony from the opposite party no.2.

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 05.02.2024, it is admitted case of the parties that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and the entire finding of the trial court is based on the compromise, which has been challenged before this Court through the order impugned. Perusal of record, it appears that the compromise took place on 19.02.2021 but to prove this compromise both the witnesses have not been produced before the trial court. One witness, who has been examined as D.W.2-Alok Kumar, in his examination-in-chief at page no.101 of the paper book has stated that he and his uncle have made their signatures on the compromise whereas at page no.105 of the paper book, he denied and stated that the compromise was not settled by him but only he went there. In this way it is clear that actually he has also given confusing statement. 3 CRLR No. 1041 of 2024

8. It is also alleged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the stamp paper was purchased on 15.10.2019 at the time when the revisionist gave birth to her son Shaurya, who has been arrayed as revisionist no.2 in the instant criminal revision, later it was misused by the opposite party no.2 by way of preparing fake compromise dated 19.02.2021. Although, this fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no amount of Rs.7 Lakh was given to the revisionist by any cheque or draft or in any account.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has not examined the correctness of the alleged compromise dated 19.02.2021, in letter in spirit, but the finding of the trial court is solely based on the said compromise, which appears to be forged one, therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the trial court being perverse, against the fact and law, deserves to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Meerut, in Maintenance Case No. 432 of 2020 (Smt. Swati and another Vs. Monti), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the same afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned to adduce their respective evidence, specifically, on the alleged compromise dated 19.02.2021.

11. The trial court is expected to decide the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

12. It is made clear that the trial court would be at liberty to decide the matter afresh by taking additional evidence, if required, without being influenced by any of the observations made herinabove. September 17, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad