State Of Up And Another v. Party

No. 23 of 2016 (Smt. Asifa Siddiqui Vs. Mohd. Shamshir) whereby the trial court has rejected the execution application filed by the revisionist on the ground that whatever outstanding money, which was to be given to the revisionist by the opposite party no. 2 towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court, has already been paid to her by opposite party no.2 and now there is no outstanding amount left. The executing court has also observed under the impugned order that the revisionist shall be at liberty to file a fresh execution application as and when she feels aggrieved.

3. Relevant facts, as born out from the records of the present criminal revision are that the revisionist filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court which was numbered as Case No. 127 of 2010, which was allowed by the trial court ex parte vide judgment and order dated 20th October, 2016 whereby the trial court while allowing the said case ex parte, had directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Whereafter the revisionist filed Execution Case No. 23 of 2016, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 28th April, 2017. Then, the revisionist filed Misc. Petition (Criminal) No. 1850 of 2018 (Asifa Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. & Others) before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said petition was finally decided by 2 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024 a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25th October, 2018 directed the Family Court to take all such steps in accordance with law for ensuring the recovery of balance amount of outstanding dues and regular payment of maintenance allowance.

4. The relevant portion of the order of the Coordinate Bench reads as follows: "... The contention of Sri Tarun Srivastava, learned counsel is that a recovery warrant that was issued by the court below on 21.8.2017 in Execution Case No. 23 of 2016 that has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the petition is of sum of Rs. 7,90,000/. On 12.7.2018, a demand draft for an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/ (two lacs ten thousand) was submitted by the brother of respondent no.3 which was handed over to the petitioner in Court. It is contended by the petitioner that the balance amount is payable along with all further dues that have accrued thereafter. This petition was filed on the ground that nothing was being paid by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner and he was never appearing in the court below. Now, as the respondent no.3 Mohammad Shamsheer has been produced in custody by the police before this Court, I direct that he shall be produced by the police on the date fixed before the court below which is executing the recovery warrant in Execution Case No. 23 of 2016. It is being made clear that it is the responsibility of the police to ensure presence of the respondent no.3 on the date fixed before the court below. The court below shall, thereafter, take such steps in accordance with law to ensure recovery of balance amount of outstanding dues and further to ensure regular payment of the maintenance amount fixed by the court below in terms of order dated 20.10.2016, passed in Case No. 127 of 2010 by the Additional Family Court/Addl. District Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of"

5. During the pendency of the said petition, on 12th July, 2018, a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- was submitted by the brother of opposite party no.2 before the said Coordinate Bench and the same was also handed over to the revisionist in the Court itself. In pursuance of the said order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the opposite party no.2 was arrested and produced before the trial court on 21st June, 2018 where he filed an application for recall of the order dated 20th October, 2016. The said recall application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 24th September,

2018. Being aggrieved, the opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Revision No. 3 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024 3990 of 2018 (Mohd. Shamsir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Another) under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated 2nd April, 2019, which is quoted hereunder: "Sri Ashutosh Vaish, Advocate has filed vakalatnama today on behalf of the opposite party No.2 after seeking no objection from the earlier counsel Sri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, which is taken on record. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the revision-applicant is that even as per the assessment of the court below the maximum earning of the applicant is Rs.30,000/-, however, he contends that there is no evidence available before the court below. At this stage, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the monthly amount Rs.10,000/- awarded by the court below is too excessive. Matter requires consideration. Admit. Issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable within six weeks. State may file response within the aforesaid period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. In the meanwhile, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant pursuant to the order dated 20th October, 2016 passed by the Additional Family Judge/ Additional District Judge-VI, Allahabad in Case No. 127 of 2010 (Smt. Asifa Siddiqui v. Mohd. Shamshir Khan) P.S.- Karely, District- Allahabad, provided the applicant deposits Rs. 1,00,000/- by 25th April, 2019 and also deposits 50% of the arrears of the maintenance amount @ Rs.6,000/- per month as has accrued till date in eight equal bimonthly installments and also continues to deposit monthly maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month simultaneously with the monthly installments. It is made clear that in the event of default of the payment as per the direction issued hereinabove, the interim protection granted under the order shall stand discharged and the opposite party No.2 shall be at liberty to recover the amount in accordance with law."

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehementally submitted that though the opposite party no.2 has complied with the first part of the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2nd April, 2019 by depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- before the executing court, but he has not complied with the second part of the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court by 4 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024 not depositing 50% of the arrears of the maintenance amount at the rate of 6,000/- per month as prevailing on that date in eight equal bimonthly installments. As such, the said amount of 50% of the arrears of maintenance allowance is still due to be paid by opposite party no.2 and such part of the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court has completely been ignored by the trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionist under the impugned order, which is per se illegal.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the trial court has committed gross error in rejecting the application of the revisionist under the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other-hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionist.

9. Besides the above, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that during the pendency of Misc. Petition (Criminal) No. 1850 of 2018 (Asifa Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. & Others) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the revisionist, on 12th July, 2018, a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- was submitted by the brother of opposite party no.2 before the said Coordinate Bench and the same had also been handed over to the revisionist in the Court itself on the same day. He then submits that in compliance of the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3990 of 2018 (Mohd. Shamsir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Another) under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the entire amount of arrears of maintenance allowance as earlier awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionist has already been paid after adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- which was paid by the brother of opposite party no.2 to the revisionist in the Hon'ble High Court itself and now no amount of arrears of maintenance allowance is left to pay. Thus, the trial court has rightly rejected the execution application filed by the revisionist under the impugned order as the entire amount of arrears of maintenance allowance has already been paid to the revisionist and nothing is still due against the opposite party no.2 to be paid to her.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State, the records of the present criminal revision including the impugned order, judgment and order of the Coordinated Bench of this Court dated 25th October, 2018 and also the 5 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024 order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 2019, this Court finds from the impugned order that during the pendency of the instant execution proceedings, both the parties were directed to file their respective affidavits in order to calculate the amount which is to be given to the revisionist by opposite party no.2 towards amount of arrears of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and in compliance thereof, both the parties had filed their respective affidavits. In the affidavit filed by the revisionist, it was admitted that in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Rs. 3,68,171/- had been received by her and only Rs. 3,882/- is left to be paid by opposite party no.2.

11. Today, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted before this Court that initially the brother of opposite party no.2 had already paid Rs. 2,10,000/- to the revisionist, therefore, later on he has paid Rs. 1,58,171/- to the revisionist and in this way, he has paid total Rs. 3,68,171/- to the revisionist in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court which was admitted by the revisionist in her affidavit. He further submits that the remaining amount of Rs. 3,882/- has also been paid by opposite party no.2.

12. In reply, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that under the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 2019, since in the order dated 2nd April, 2019, no direction had been issued qua the adjustment of Rs. 2,10,000/-, which was earlier paid in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as such, the opposite party no.2 was duty bound to comply with entire direction of the Coordinate Bench under the order dated 2nd April, 2019. Since the second part of the direction of the order dated 2nd April, 2019 has not been complied with by the opposite party no.2 by not depositing the 50% of the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance at the rate of 6,000/- in eight equal bimonthly installments, the order impugned cannot be legally sustained.

13. In the opinion of the Court, the said submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist has no legs to stand. Since as per the own admission of the revisionist before the executing court that the revisionist had already been received Rs. 3,68,171/- in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court after adjustment of Rs. 2,10,000/-, which was earlier received by her, and remaining amount of of Rs. 3,882/- has later being received by her, meaning thereby that she has already received the entire amount of arrears of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of filing of the said application i.e. 6th March, 2010 to the date of passing of the order of the Coordinated Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 2019 and now nothing remains to be paid by the opposite party no.2 to the revisionist. 6 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024

14. Only on the ground that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has not mentioned the adjustment of Rs 2,10,000/- in its order dated 2nd April, 2019, the revisionist is not entitled to get more than the exact entire amount of arrears of maintenance allowance which she had already been paid.

15. Consequently, this Court finds no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The trial court has rightly rejected the execution application of the revisionist under the impugned order, which cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.

16. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 27, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.)

No. 23 of 2016 (Smt. Asifa Siddiqui Vs. Mohd. Shamshir) whereby the trial court has rejected the execution application filed by the revisionist on the ground that whatever outstanding money, which was to be given to the revisionist by the opposite party no. 2 towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court, has already been paid to her by opposite party no.2 and now there is no outstanding amount left. The executing court has also observed under the impugned order that the revisionist shall be at liberty to file a fresh execution application as and when she feels aggrieved.

3. Relevant facts, as born out from the records of the present criminal revision are that the revisionist filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court which was numbered as Case No. 127 of 2010, which was allowed by the trial court ex parte vide judgment and order dated 20th October, 2016 whereby the trial court while allowing the said case ex parte, had directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Whereafter the revisionist filed Execution Case No. 23 of 2016, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 28th April, 2017. Then, the revisionist filed Misc. Petition (Criminal) No. 1850 of 2018 (Asifa Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. & Others) before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said petition was finally decided by 2 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024 a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25th October, 2018 directed the Family Court to take all such steps in accordance with law for ensuring the recovery of balance amount of outstanding dues and regular payment of maintenance allowance.

4. The relevant portion of the order of the Coordinate Bench reads as follows: "... The contention of Sri Tarun Srivastava, learned counsel is that a recovery warrant that was issued by the court below on 21.8.2017 in Execution Case No. 23 of 2016 that has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the petition is of sum of Rs. 7,90,000/. On 12.7.2018, a demand draft for an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/ (two lacs ten thousand) was submitted by the brother of respondent no.3 which was handed over to the petitioner in Court. It is contended by the petitioner that the balance amount is payable along with all further dues that have accrued thereafter. This petition was filed on the ground that nothing was being paid by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner and he was never appearing in the court below. Now, as the respondent no.3 Mohammad Shamsheer has been produced in custody by the police before this Court, I direct that he shall be produced by the police on the date fixed before the court below which is executing the recovery warrant in Execution Case No. 23 of 2016. It is being made clear that it is the responsibility of the police to ensure presence of the respondent no.3 on the date fixed before the court below. The court below shall, thereafter, take such steps in accordance with law to ensure recovery of balance amount of outstanding dues and further to ensure regular payment of the maintenance amount fixed by the court below in terms of order dated 20.10.2016, passed in Case No. 127 of 2010 by the Additional Family Court/Addl. District Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of"

5. During the pendency of the said petition, on 12th July, 2018, a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- was submitted by the brother of opposite party no.2 before the said Coordinate Bench and the same was also handed over to the revisionist in the Court itself. In pursuance of the said order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the opposite party no.2 was arrested and produced before the trial court on 21st June, 2018 where he filed an application for recall of the order dated 20th October, 2016. The said recall application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 24th September,

2018. Being aggrieved, the opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Revision No. 3 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024 3990 of 2018 (Mohd. Shamsir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Another) under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated 2nd April, 2019, which is quoted hereunder: "Sri Ashutosh Vaish, Advocate has filed vakalatnama today on behalf of the opposite party No.2 after seeking no objection from the earlier counsel Sri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, which is taken on record. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the revision-applicant is that even as per the assessment of the court below the maximum earning of the applicant is Rs.30,000/-, however, he contends that there is no evidence available before the court below. At this stage, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the monthly amount Rs.10,000/- awarded by the court below is too excessive. Matter requires consideration. Admit. Issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable within six weeks. State may file response within the aforesaid period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. In the meanwhile, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant pursuant to the order dated 20th October, 2016 passed by the Additional Family Judge/ Additional District Judge-VI, Allahabad in Case No. 127 of 2010 (Smt. Asifa Siddiqui v. Mohd. Shamshir Khan) P.S.- Karely, District- Allahabad, provided the applicant deposits Rs. 1,00,000/- by 25th April, 2019 and also deposits 50% of the arrears of the maintenance amount @ Rs.6,000/- per month as has accrued till date in eight equal bimonthly installments and also continues to deposit monthly maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month simultaneously with the monthly installments. It is made clear that in the event of default of the payment as per the direction issued hereinabove, the interim protection granted under the order shall stand discharged and the opposite party No.2 shall be at liberty to recover the amount in accordance with law."

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehementally submitted that though the opposite party no.2 has complied with the first part of the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2nd April, 2019 by depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- before the executing court, but he has not complied with the second part of the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court by 4 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024 not depositing 50% of the arrears of the maintenance amount at the rate of 6,000/- per month as prevailing on that date in eight equal bimonthly installments. As such, the said amount of 50% of the arrears of maintenance allowance is still due to be paid by opposite party no.2 and such part of the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court has completely been ignored by the trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionist under the impugned order, which is per se illegal.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the trial court has committed gross error in rejecting the application of the revisionist under the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other-hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionist.

9. Besides the above, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that during the pendency of Misc. Petition (Criminal) No. 1850 of 2018 (Asifa Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. & Others) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the revisionist, on 12th July, 2018, a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- was submitted by the brother of opposite party no.2 before the said Coordinate Bench and the same had also been handed over to the revisionist in the Court itself on the same day. He then submits that in compliance of the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3990 of 2018 (Mohd. Shamsir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Another) under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the entire amount of arrears of maintenance allowance as earlier awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionist has already been paid after adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- which was paid by the brother of opposite party no.2 to the revisionist in the Hon'ble High Court itself and now no amount of arrears of maintenance allowance is left to pay. Thus, the trial court has rightly rejected the execution application filed by the revisionist under the impugned order as the entire amount of arrears of maintenance allowance has already been paid to the revisionist and nothing is still due against the opposite party no.2 to be paid to her.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State, the records of the present criminal revision including the impugned order, judgment and order of the Coordinated Bench of this Court dated 25th October, 2018 and also the 5 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024 order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 2019, this Court finds from the impugned order that during the pendency of the instant execution proceedings, both the parties were directed to file their respective affidavits in order to calculate the amount which is to be given to the revisionist by opposite party no.2 towards amount of arrears of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and in compliance thereof, both the parties had filed their respective affidavits. In the affidavit filed by the revisionist, it was admitted that in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Rs. 3,68,171/- had been received by her and only Rs. 3,882/- is left to be paid by opposite party no.2.

11. Today, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted before this Court that initially the brother of opposite party no.2 had already paid Rs. 2,10,000/- to the revisionist, therefore, later on he has paid Rs. 1,58,171/- to the revisionist and in this way, he has paid total Rs. 3,68,171/- to the revisionist in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court which was admitted by the revisionist in her affidavit. He further submits that the remaining amount of Rs. 3,882/- has also been paid by opposite party no.2.

12. In reply, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that under the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 2019, since in the order dated 2nd April, 2019, no direction had been issued qua the adjustment of Rs. 2,10,000/-, which was earlier paid in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as such, the opposite party no.2 was duty bound to comply with entire direction of the Coordinate Bench under the order dated 2nd April, 2019. Since the second part of the direction of the order dated 2nd April, 2019 has not been complied with by the opposite party no.2 by not depositing the 50% of the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance at the rate of 6,000/- in eight equal bimonthly installments, the order impugned cannot be legally sustained.

13. In the opinion of the Court, the said submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist has no legs to stand. Since as per the own admission of the revisionist before the executing court that the revisionist had already been received Rs. 3,68,171/- in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court after adjustment of Rs. 2,10,000/-, which was earlier received by her, and remaining amount of of Rs. 3,882/- has later being received by her, meaning thereby that she has already received the entire amount of arrears of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of filing of the said application i.e. 6th March, 2010 to the date of passing of the order of the Coordinated Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 2019 and now nothing remains to be paid by the opposite party no.2 to the revisionist. 6 CRLR No. 5611 of 2024

14. Only on the ground that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has not mentioned the adjustment of Rs 2,10,000/- in its order dated 2nd April, 2019, the revisionist is not entitled to get more than the exact entire amount of arrears of maintenance allowance which she had already been paid.

15. Consequently, this Court finds no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The trial court has rightly rejected the execution application of the revisionist under the impugned order, which cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.

16. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 27, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.)