Ruma Yadav v. Deepak Yadav), under Section

: Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, Rahul Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Pandey, G.A. Shukla Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ashish 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 revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 388 of 2022 (Ruma Yadav Vs. Deepak Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (till he attains the age of majority), who is the minor son of the revisionist, from the date of application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 is living in adultery with one Nitin regarding which certain whats-app chats and photographs taken from mobile phone have been filed by the revisionist before the trial court but all these facts have not been considered and the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed supplementary affidavit today annexing therewith whats-app chats and some photographs have been annexed and stated that from the chats it is clear that the opposite party no.2 is in relation with some Nitin. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court in favour of the opposite party no.2 is excessive while he is getting salary of Rs.61,000/- per month and he has 2 CRLR No. 3409 of 2024 responsibility to take care of his old mother and children of his widow sister, who are studying.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also pointed out that the opposite party no.2 has also filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, against one Amit Bajpai vide Case No.502 of 2020, in which the trial court vide order dated 14.06.2023 has granted Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the opposite party no.2 from the date of application. Shri Amit Bajpai has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2 on the ground that she has submitted a false affidavit disclosing herself as house wife whereas she is working as Physiotherapist in Jai Ram Hospital, Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel further submits that Shri Amit Bajpai has approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Revision No.3760 of 2023 challenging the veracity of the order dated 14.06.2023. This Court after hearing the counsel for the parties vide order dated 15.12.2023 allowed the criminal revision and set aside the order dated 14.06.2023. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1/court concerned was also directed to decide the application of Shri Amit Bajpai, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. within a period of three months without granting any undue adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no any legal impediment.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 stated that the revisionist is working as Accountant in the Ministry of Home Affairs and earns handsome salary. He further submitted that the allegation of adultery could be proved before the trial court and no material to substantiate the allegation of adultery has been produced before the trial court and this fact has also been mentioned in paragraph no.19 of the impugned judgment.

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, it appears that it is admitted case that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the opposite party no. 3 is the minor son of the revisionist. The revisionist has made serious allegations against the opposite party no.2 and through supplementary affidavit certain chats and photographs have been annexed. From perusal of para-19 of the judgment, it reflects that some relevant documents has also been filed by the revisionist before the trial court but the trial court has discarded them only on the basis of the fact that they were not proved according to the provisions of the Evidence Act. Since, the allegations are of very serious nature, the same requires deeper scrutiny by the trial court, hence this Court is of the 3 CRLR No. 3409 of 2024 considered opinion to remit the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision after providing proper opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce their respective evidence.

8. It is also pertinent to mention here that an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also alleged to have been filed before the trial court, which is still pending adjudication, hence, the finding of the trial court qua the maintenance awarded to the opposite party no.2 being wholly perverse and against the fact and law deserves to be set aside and quashed.

9. Accordingly, the instant revision is party allowed. So far as the judgment and order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 388 of 2022 (Ruma Yadav Vs. Deepak Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad qua the opposite party no.2 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh, specifically with regard to the issue of adultery of opposite party no.2, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned to adduce their evidences.

10. So far as the judgment and order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 388 of 2022 (Ruma Yadav Vs. Deepak Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad qua the opposite party no.3-Akshaj, minor son of the revisionist, it is hereby affirmed.

11. The trial court is expected to decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. pending before it, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it.

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 19, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, Rahul Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Pandey, G.A. Shukla Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ashish 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 revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 388 of 2022 (Ruma Yadav Vs. Deepak Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (till he attains the age of majority), who is the minor son of the revisionist, from the date of application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 is living in adultery with one Nitin regarding which certain whats-app chats and photographs taken from mobile phone have been filed by the revisionist before the trial court but all these facts have not been considered and the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed supplementary affidavit today annexing therewith whats-app chats and some photographs have been annexed and stated that from the chats it is clear that the opposite party no.2 is in relation with some Nitin. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court in favour of the opposite party no.2 is excessive while he is getting salary of Rs.61,000/- per month and he has 2 CRLR No. 3409 of 2024 responsibility to take care of his old mother and children of his widow sister, who are studying.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also pointed out that the opposite party no.2 has also filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, against one Amit Bajpai vide Case No.502 of 2020, in which the trial court vide order dated 14.06.2023 has granted Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the opposite party no.2 from the date of application. Shri Amit Bajpai has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2 on the ground that she has submitted a false affidavit disclosing herself as house wife whereas she is working as Physiotherapist in Jai Ram Hospital, Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel further submits that Shri Amit Bajpai has approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Revision No.3760 of 2023 challenging the veracity of the order dated 14.06.2023. This Court after hearing the counsel for the parties vide order dated 15.12.2023 allowed the criminal revision and set aside the order dated 14.06.2023. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1/court concerned was also directed to decide the application of Shri Amit Bajpai, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. within a period of three months without granting any undue adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no any legal impediment.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 stated that the revisionist is working as Accountant in the Ministry of Home Affairs and earns handsome salary. He further submitted that the allegation of adultery could be proved before the trial court and no material to substantiate the allegation of adultery has been produced before the trial court and this fact has also been mentioned in paragraph no.19 of the impugned judgment.

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, it appears that it is admitted case that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the opposite party no. 3 is the minor son of the revisionist. The revisionist has made serious allegations against the opposite party no.2 and through supplementary affidavit certain chats and photographs have been annexed. From perusal of para-19 of the judgment, it reflects that some relevant documents has also been filed by the revisionist before the trial court but the trial court has discarded them only on the basis of the fact that they were not proved according to the provisions of the Evidence Act. Since, the allegations are of very serious nature, the same requires deeper scrutiny by the trial court, hence this Court is of the 3 CRLR No. 3409 of 2024 considered opinion to remit the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision after providing proper opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce their respective evidence.

8. It is also pertinent to mention here that an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also alleged to have been filed before the trial court, which is still pending adjudication, hence, the finding of the trial court qua the maintenance awarded to the opposite party no.2 being wholly perverse and against the fact and law deserves to be set aside and quashed.

9. Accordingly, the instant revision is party allowed. So far as the judgment and order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 388 of 2022 (Ruma Yadav Vs. Deepak Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad qua the opposite party no.2 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh, specifically with regard to the issue of adultery of opposite party no.2, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned to adduce their evidences.

10. So far as the judgment and order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 388 of 2022 (Ruma Yadav Vs. Deepak Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad qua the opposite party no.3-Akshaj, minor son of the revisionist, it is hereby affirmed.

11. The trial court is expected to decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. pending before it, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it.

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 19, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad