High Court · 2025

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision as well as Misc. Application No. 19Ga dated 06.04.2023 filed by the revisionist and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri along with the entire proceeding of the Case No. 443/2018 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Sanjay Tiwari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2 pending before Family Court, Mainpuri and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid impugned order as well as its proceedings during the pendency of this revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2/the wife which was registered as Case No. 443 of 2018 in Mainpuri in which an objection was filed by the revisionist regarding jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of residence of the opposite party no. 2 on 06.04.2023 on the basis of which order dated 04.05.2023 was passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This order was passed ex-parte in absence of wife/opposite party no. 2. He further submits that this order was challenged before this Court and Voter ID as well as Ration Card was produced before this Court showing the current residence of opposite party no. 2 in Mainpuri. This Court considered this fact and remanded the matter back to the learned trial court to decide the issue of jurisdiction afresh by order dated 18.10.2024. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 did not produce Ration card and Voter ID card before the learned trial court even though it passed the order dated 19.04.2025 and rejected the application Paper No. 19 (Ba) filed on the part of revisionist and held that there is jurisdiction with the 2 CRLR No. 2384 of 2025 family court Mainpuri. He further submits that the learned trial court has taken into consideration other papers those were present on record but the papers those were filed before this Court were not produced by the opposite party no. 2. He relied his argument on the decision given by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kostubh Dadhichi Anshu Vs. Aditya Juniwal 2025 SCC Online Del 1267. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 19.04.2025 cannot be said to be lawful and in tune of provisions as contained under Section 126(1) Cr.P.C, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 19.04.2025 and allow this revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist. She is living in district Mainpuri in the house of her Mausi just after the dispute arose between the parties. She filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when she was living in the house of her Mausi at Mainpuri since her brother is living in Kanpur who was misbehaving with her. He contends that regarding cruelty on the part of the revisionist she lodged an F.I.R. as Crime No. 42 of 2013 under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, in Mahila Thana, District Mainpuri. The matter was referred for conciliation and in this regard an affidavit was also filed before the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri on 19.12.2013 that after compromise between the parties the wife will go with the husband from January, 2013 since the revisionist assured to keep her properly. She also agreed not to proceed with the case under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. He further contends that a case under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by the revisionist that was registered as Case No. 2073 of 2024 in which the current address of the wife/opposite party no. 2 was mentioned as Gopinath Adda, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. He also contends that notice in the aforesaid case under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act was also issued by the learned family court on the aforesaid address and the proceedings in that case are going on. He further contends that the aforesaid address of the opposite party no. 2 was also mentioned on the compromise deed which was prepared between both the parties on Rs. 50 stamp paper and there is also voter list on record showing the name of opposite party no. 2 in the electoral roll of Mainpuri. All these documents were taken into consideration by the learned trial court while deciding the issue by order dated 19.04.2025, therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 2 was not living in Mainpuri at the time of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As per provisions contained under Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be filed at a place where he or she lives. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., the order passed by the learned trial court dated 19.04.2025 and perusal of material on 3 CRLR No. 2384 of 2025 record, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist. She was permanent resident of Kanpur Nagar and was married at Bareilly when dispute arose between husband and wife she came to Mainpuri in the house of her Mausi to live since her brother was misbehaving with her. Earlier she lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionist as Crime No. 42 of 2013 under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act in Mahila Thana, District Mainpuri in which there was compromise between husband and wife in conciliation centre, Mainpuri regarding which an affidavit and compromise deed was entered into between the parties and on that basis final report was filed in that case. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court in Mainpuri in the year 2013 mentioning her address of Mainpuri. The revisionist himself filed a case under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act against the opposite party no. 2 in which her address was also mentioned as aforesaid in the district Mainpuri and notice was also sent to her on that address issued by the family court of Bareilly. The electoral roll of district Mainpuri also shows her to be resident of Mainpuri. All these material shows that at the time of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the family court Mainpuri she was living in Mainpuri in the house of her Mausi and the learned trial court has also taken into consideration all the material on record and then passed the order in question. On the other hand, the papers filed by the revisionist show the address of the opposite party no. 2 at Kanpur in support of which the photocopy of electoral roll, Aadhar cards and photocopy of Aadhar cards of mother and brother Amar Shukla and death certificate of father Ajay Shukla are attached. On the basis of those papers it cannot be said that she was not living in Mainpuri at the time when she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. because she is permanent resident of Kanpur Nagar and all these papers were prepared at the time when she was living in Kanpur. Thus it is established that she was living in Mainpuri at the time of filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and as per scheme u/s 126(1) Cr.P.C. the family court Mainpuri has jurisdiction to entertain the case. In this way, the order dated 19.04.2025 cannot be said to be illegal and inappropriate but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision as well as Misc. Application No. 19Ga dated 06.04.2023 filed by the revisionist and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri along with the entire proceeding of the Case No. 443/2018 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Sanjay Tiwari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2 pending before Family Court, Mainpuri and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid impugned order as well as its proceedings during the pendency of this revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2/the wife which was registered as Case No. 443 of 2018 in Mainpuri in which an objection was filed by the revisionist regarding jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of residence of the opposite party no. 2 on 06.04.2023 on the basis of which order dated 04.05.2023 was passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This order was passed ex-parte in absence of wife/opposite party no. 2. He further submits that this order was challenged before this Court and Voter ID as well as Ration Card was produced before this Court showing the current residence of opposite party no. 2 in Mainpuri. This Court considered this fact and remanded the matter back to the learned trial court to decide the issue of jurisdiction afresh by order dated 18.10.2024. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 did not produce Ration card and Voter ID card before the learned trial court even though it passed the order dated 19.04.2025 and rejected the application Paper No. 19 (Ba) filed on the part of revisionist and held that there is jurisdiction with the 2 CRLR No. 2384 of 2025 family court Mainpuri. He further submits that the learned trial court has taken into consideration other papers those were present on record but the papers those were filed before this Court were not produced by the opposite party no. 2. He relied his argument on the decision given by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kostubh Dadhichi Anshu Vs. Aditya Juniwal 2025 SCC Online Del 1267. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 19.04.2025 cannot be said to be lawful and in tune of provisions as contained under Section 126(1) Cr.P.C, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 19.04.2025 and allow this revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist. She is living in district Mainpuri in the house of her Mausi just after the dispute arose between the parties. She filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when she was living in the house of her Mausi at Mainpuri since her brother is living in Kanpur who was misbehaving with her. He contends that regarding cruelty on the part of the revisionist she lodged an F.I.R. as Crime No. 42 of 2013 under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, in Mahila Thana, District Mainpuri. The matter was referred for conciliation and in this regard an affidavit was also filed before the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri on 19.12.2013 that after compromise between the parties the wife will go with the husband from January, 2013 since the revisionist assured to keep her properly. She also agreed not to proceed with the case under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. He further contends that a case under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by the revisionist that was registered as Case No. 2073 of 2024 in which the current address of the wife/opposite party no. 2 was mentioned as Gopinath Adda, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. He also contends that notice in the aforesaid case under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act was also issued by the learned family court on the aforesaid address and the proceedings in that case are going on. He further contends that the aforesaid address of the opposite party no. 2 was also mentioned on the compromise deed which was prepared between both the parties on Rs. 50 stamp paper and there is also voter list on record showing the name of opposite party no. 2 in the electoral roll of Mainpuri. All these documents were taken into consideration by the learned trial court while deciding the issue by order dated 19.04.2025, therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 2 was not living in Mainpuri at the time of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As per provisions contained under Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be filed at a place where he or she lives. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., the order passed by the learned trial court dated 19.04.2025 and perusal of material on 3 CRLR No. 2384 of 2025 record, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist. She was permanent resident of Kanpur Nagar and was married at Bareilly when dispute arose between husband and wife she came to Mainpuri in the house of her Mausi to live since her brother was misbehaving with her. Earlier she lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionist as Crime No. 42 of 2013 under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act in Mahila Thana, District Mainpuri in which there was compromise between husband and wife in conciliation centre, Mainpuri regarding which an affidavit and compromise deed was entered into between the parties and on that basis final report was filed in that case. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court in Mainpuri in the year 2013 mentioning her address of Mainpuri. The revisionist himself filed a case under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act against the opposite party no. 2 in which her address was also mentioned as aforesaid in the district Mainpuri and notice was also sent to her on that address issued by the family court of Bareilly. The electoral roll of district Mainpuri also shows her to be resident of Mainpuri. All these material shows that at the time of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the family court Mainpuri she was living in Mainpuri in the house of her Mausi and the learned trial court has also taken into consideration all the material on record and then passed the order in question. On the other hand, the papers filed by the revisionist show the address of the opposite party no. 2 at Kanpur in support of which the photocopy of electoral roll, Aadhar cards and photocopy of Aadhar cards of mother and brother Amar Shukla and death certificate of father Ajay Shukla are attached. On the basis of those papers it cannot be said that she was not living in Mainpuri at the time when she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. because she is permanent resident of Kanpur Nagar and all these papers were prepared at the time when she was living in Kanpur. Thus it is established that she was living in Mainpuri at the time of filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and as per scheme u/s 126(1) Cr.P.C. the family court Mainpuri has jurisdiction to entertain the case. In this way, the order dated 19.04.2025 cannot be said to be illegal and inappropriate but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad