State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 29th May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 703 of 2023 (Smt. Neeta Shukla Vs. Vinod Pandey), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the interim stay application being Application/Paper No. 22 filed in the instant application by opposite party no.2 has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 on 7th day of each calendar month from the date of passing of the impugned order.

3. The main and sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that since earlier the revisionist was working as Manager in Tech Pro. System Limited Company, Gurgaon and he was earning handsome money but since the said company was declared as bankrupt, his services had been terminated. Thereafter the revisionist was suffering from some mental illness and his mental condition deteriorated day by day due to which he was unable to earn some money for his livelihood. The said fact has been raised before the trial court that since he is suffering from mental illness he is unable to maintain himself but the trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the revisionist fairly concedes that in support of the aforesaid submission the revisionist has not produced any medical document before the trial court. He next submits that after passing of the impugned order, on 27th August, 2024 the revisionist has approached the expert doctor of King George Medical College, Lucknow where after his detail diagnosis, it was found that the 2 CRLR No. 4434 of 2024 revisionist was suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder i.e. a serious kind of mental illness. In support of the same, the copies of the medical reports and prescriptions of the King George Medial College have been enclosed as Annexure No. S.A.- 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed earlier. He again submits that a certificate dated 11th February, 2025 has also been issued by the Chief Medical Officer (Male) District Hospital Ayodhya wherein it has been reported that the revisionist is suffering from B.P.A.D. and is having 60% disability.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court while passing the impugned order has not appreciated the factum of the case, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned interim order passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. They also submit that since the revisionist has completely failed to establish that he is suffering from mental illness by producing any documentary evidence, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned interim order passed by the trial court, this Court finds that the impugned order is an interim order and the trial court only on the basis of prima facie case has passed the said order. Since the revisionist has produced any documentary evidence with regard to his mental condition and such fact has only been raised as oral evidence, the trial court has passed the impugned order while recording its prima facie opinion that since it is noteworthy that the revisionist is appearing from District-Faizabad and is representing the case and also is contesting the proceedings of the case by appointing an advocate. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the revisionist is mentally ill. It is also important to note that the revisionist is present before the court as a completely healthy person. In such view of the matter the trial court has not considered the said ground of the revisionist while passing the impugned interim order.

7. After going through the impugned order this Court is prima facie opinion that since the revisionist has not produce any documentary evidence for establishing his case that the revisionist is suffering from mental illness, therefore, he is not only unable to maintain his wife but also himself, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. As such, 3 CRLR No. 4434 of 2024 this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned interim order.

8. This Court may also record that the instant application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the trial court for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court. After filing of oral as well as documentary evidence and after trial proceedings, the trial court will decide as to whether the revisionist is entitled to get any maintenance allowance or not and as to how much amount is the revisionist entitled and also from which period is she awarded maintenance allowance along with other issues. This Court has also no room to doubt that the trial court before deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall decide the issue to be raised by the revisionist by way of an appropriate application supported by such necessary documents as he may be advised for establishing his case that since he is suffering from B.P.A.D. and is having 60% disability in accordance with the law on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence to be led during the course of trial and also for calling for expert opinion on the subject.

9. This Court may also record that the medical certificates, reports, prescription produced by the revisionist before this Court by means of the supplementary affidavit cannot be examined by this Court at this stage while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. This cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist as the same has been led for the first time before this Court and same has to be examined in summary proceedings i.e. before the trial court.

10. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the interim order impugned passed by the trial court.

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

12. It is clarified that the trial court while deciding the instant proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall not influence by any observations made herein above by this Court, which are based on prima facie view, in any manner. October 14, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 29th May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 703 of 2023 (Smt. Neeta Shukla Vs. Vinod Pandey), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the interim stay application being Application/Paper No. 22 filed in the instant application by opposite party no.2 has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 on 7th day of each calendar month from the date of passing of the impugned order.

3. The main and sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that since earlier the revisionist was working as Manager in Tech Pro. System Limited Company, Gurgaon and he was earning handsome money but since the said company was declared as bankrupt, his services had been terminated. Thereafter the revisionist was suffering from some mental illness and his mental condition deteriorated day by day due to which he was unable to earn some money for his livelihood. The said fact has been raised before the trial court that since he is suffering from mental illness he is unable to maintain himself but the trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the revisionist fairly concedes that in support of the aforesaid submission the revisionist has not produced any medical document before the trial court. He next submits that after passing of the impugned order, on 27th August, 2024 the revisionist has approached the expert doctor of King George Medical College, Lucknow where after his detail diagnosis, it was found that the 2 CRLR No. 4434 of 2024 revisionist was suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder i.e. a serious kind of mental illness. In support of the same, the copies of the medical reports and prescriptions of the King George Medial College have been enclosed as Annexure No. S.A.- 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed earlier. He again submits that a certificate dated 11th February, 2025 has also been issued by the Chief Medical Officer (Male) District Hospital Ayodhya wherein it has been reported that the revisionist is suffering from B.P.A.D. and is having 60% disability.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court while passing the impugned order has not appreciated the factum of the case, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned interim order passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. They also submit that since the revisionist has completely failed to establish that he is suffering from mental illness by producing any documentary evidence, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned interim order passed by the trial court, this Court finds that the impugned order is an interim order and the trial court only on the basis of prima facie case has passed the said order. Since the revisionist has produced any documentary evidence with regard to his mental condition and such fact has only been raised as oral evidence, the trial court has passed the impugned order while recording its prima facie opinion that since it is noteworthy that the revisionist is appearing from District-Faizabad and is representing the case and also is contesting the proceedings of the case by appointing an advocate. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the revisionist is mentally ill. It is also important to note that the revisionist is present before the court as a completely healthy person. In such view of the matter the trial court has not considered the said ground of the revisionist while passing the impugned interim order.

7. After going through the impugned order this Court is prima facie opinion that since the revisionist has not produce any documentary evidence for establishing his case that the revisionist is suffering from mental illness, therefore, he is not only unable to maintain his wife but also himself, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. As such, 3 CRLR No. 4434 of 2024 this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned interim order.

8. This Court may also record that the instant application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the trial court for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court. After filing of oral as well as documentary evidence and after trial proceedings, the trial court will decide as to whether the revisionist is entitled to get any maintenance allowance or not and as to how much amount is the revisionist entitled and also from which period is she awarded maintenance allowance along with other issues. This Court has also no room to doubt that the trial court before deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall decide the issue to be raised by the revisionist by way of an appropriate application supported by such necessary documents as he may be advised for establishing his case that since he is suffering from B.P.A.D. and is having 60% disability in accordance with the law on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence to be led during the course of trial and also for calling for expert opinion on the subject.

9. This Court may also record that the medical certificates, reports, prescription produced by the revisionist before this Court by means of the supplementary affidavit cannot be examined by this Court at this stage while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. This cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist as the same has been led for the first time before this Court and same has to be examined in summary proceedings i.e. before the trial court.

10. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the interim order impugned passed by the trial court.

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

12. It is clarified that the trial court while deciding the instant proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall not influence by any observations made herein above by this Court, which are based on prima facie view, in any manner. October 14, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad