Smt. Kirti Jaiswal v. Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Badrul Hasan, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

2. The instant revision has been preferred alongwith an application (C.M.A. No. 2/2025) seeking condonation of delay of 610 days challenging the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge -08, Family Court, Lucknow (in short "Family Court") in Case No. 241 of 2023, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.").

3. For seeking condonation of the delay, following averments have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay:- "4. That opposing party no. 2 thereafter filed a petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. Case No. 1998 of 2024 before this Hon'ble Court in which he challenged the proceedings of the case U/s 125 Cr.P.C. and also challenged the order dated 31-10-2023 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow whereby Rs. 20,000/- per month were allowed as interim maintenance in favour of Master Advait Jaiswal i.e. minor son of the revisionist. This Hon'ble Court vide interim orders dated 1-3-2024 and 4-4-2024 referred the matter for mediation. During the revisionist expressed her willingness to live with opposite party no. 2 and carry out her matrimonial obligations but opposite party no. 2 did not become agree for this and he said that he is not ready to keep the revisionist with him at any cost and then ultimately the mediation proceedings failed. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 filed an application for withdrawal of the petition filed by him U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and then this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 8-11-2024 was pleased to dismiss the petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no. 2 as withdrawn. the mediation proceedings

5. That on 22-1-2025 the revisionist filed an application before Learned Family Court, Lucknow for granting interim maintenance in her favour and also Rebuttal/Denial on behalf of Petitioner no. 1 (wife) against the objection of respondent dated 22.08.2023 filed against the interim maintenance application supported with affidavit.

6. That Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow 2 CRLRD No. 447 of 2025 the application interim vide order dated 17-5-2025 rejected maintenance of the revisionist on the ground that it has already been held that the revisionist is not entitled for interim maintenance. Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow has observed in the order dated 17-5-2025 that "चू ंिक न्यायालय ्षारा पूवर् में यह अवधािरत िकया गया है िक वािदनी भरण पोषण ्ऺाप्त करने की अिधकािरणी नहीं है और उ्व आदेश को अपास्त िकये जाने हेतु वािदनी ्षारा कोई ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है। पूवर् में यह भी अवधािरत िकया जा चुका है िक उभय प्ष ्षारा एक दूसरे पर जो भी आ्षेप लगाए गए हैं उनका िनस्तारण साष्योपरांत ही िकया जा सकता है। प्ऴावली वतर्मान में साष्य वािदनी हेतु िनयत है। अतः उपरो्व समस्त तथ्यों के ्ऺकाश में ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ सी-31 िनरस्त िकए जाने योग्य है। ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ सी-31 िनरस्त िकया जाता है। आदेश प्ऴावली वास्ते साष्य वािदनी िदनाँक 19.06.2025 को पेश हो।"

7. That after going through the order dated 17-5-2025 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow the revisionist became very much surprised because she was under the impression that the application for interim maintenance filed on behalf of the minor son of the revisionist was allowed by Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow vide impugned order dated 31-10-2023 and the application for interim maintenance filed on behalf of the present revisionist was pending. The counsel engaged on behalf of the revisionist before Learned Family Court, Lucknow too had told the revisionist that interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of Master Advait Jaiswal i.e. minor son of the revisionist and the application for interim maintenance filed on behalf of the revisionist is pending.

8. That thereafter the revisionist filed a Criminal Revision No. 752 of 2025 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the order dated 17-5-2025 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No. 241/2023, U/s 125 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11-7-2025. The order dated 11-7- 2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 752 of 2025 is being reproduced below for the convenience of this Hon'ble Court - Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J. Learned counsel for the revisionist after arguing at some length submits that this revision may be dismissed as withdrawn so that he may avail the remedy if available against the earlier order. To which there is no objection by Learned A.G.A. In view of above, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn. Order Date: 11.7.2025

9. That the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 and she has no source of income to earn bread and butter for herself. After the order dated 11-7-2025 of this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 752 of 2025 the revisionist consumed some days in arrangement of money for filing the instant criminal revision. As soon as she arranged money for 3 CRLRD No. 447 of 2025 filing the instant criminal revision, she approached her counsel who immediately without any unnecessary delay prepared the instant criminal revision which is being filed before this Hon'ble Court."

4. Upon due consideration of the facts/reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of application seeking condonation of delay of 610 days, this Court finds that delay has not been properly explained. It for the following reasons :- (i) The order dated 31.10.2023 was passed on an application seeking interim maintenance by the revisionist for herself and for the minor. (ii) Vide order dated 31.10.2023, the Family Court provided the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to minor and in so far as the revisionist is concerned no relief was granted. (iii) At this stage, it is relevant to indicate that any relief not expressly granted is deemed to have been refused. (See: Explanation V of Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure) (iv) The revisionist, after above, filed an application (C-31) along with affidavit (C-32) seeking interim maintenance. (v) The aforesaid application was rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 17.05.2025 based upon the order dated 31.10.2023. (vi) To the view of this Court, the aforesaid application was preferred just to take benefit of the order for the purposes of seeking condonation of delay. (vii) The order dated 17.05.2025 was challenged before this Court by means of CRIMINAL REVISION No. 752 of 2025 and this revision was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.07.2025, which reads as under :- "Learned counsel for the revisionist after arguing at some length submits that this revision may be dismissed as withdrawn so that he may avail the remedy if available against the earlier order. To which there is no objection by Learned A.G.A. In view of above, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn." (viii) After the order dated 11.07.2025 the revisionist has approach this Court challenging the order dated 31.10.2023, whereby the interim maintenance was not granted to the revisionist. (ix) Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the firm view that it can not be believed that the revisionist was not aware about the fact that the Family Court has not awarded interim maintenance vide order dated 31.10.2023 and she came to know about the same only after passing of order dated 17.05.2025 by the Family Court.

5. In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that application seeking condonation of delay of 610 days in challenging the order dated 31.10.2023. passed by Family Court is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the revision is also dismissed. Cost made easy. 4 CRLRD No. 447 of 2025

6. Before parting, it would be appropriate to observe that the Family Court shall make all endeavor to conclude the proceedings in issue as early as possible. It is in view of the nature of the proceedings/case in issue as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, which are extracted hereunder:- "9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: this Court "In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)

16. "… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."

8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)

3. "Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife." two-Judge Bench

9. A in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)

15. "… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."

10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6) 5 CRLRD No. 447 of 2025

6. "… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."

11.Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".

10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."

7. The copy of the order be sent to the Family Court forthwith. September 9, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Badrul Hasan, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

2. The instant revision has been preferred alongwith an application (C.M.A. No. 2/2025) seeking condonation of delay of 610 days challenging the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge -08, Family Court, Lucknow (in short "Family Court") in Case No. 241 of 2023, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.").

3. For seeking condonation of the delay, following averments have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay:- "4. That opposing party no. 2 thereafter filed a petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. Case No. 1998 of 2024 before this Hon'ble Court in which he challenged the proceedings of the case U/s 125 Cr.P.C. and also challenged the order dated 31-10-2023 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow whereby Rs. 20,000/- per month were allowed as interim maintenance in favour of Master Advait Jaiswal i.e. minor son of the revisionist. This Hon'ble Court vide interim orders dated 1-3-2024 and 4-4-2024 referred the matter for mediation. During the revisionist expressed her willingness to live with opposite party no. 2 and carry out her matrimonial obligations but opposite party no. 2 did not become agree for this and he said that he is not ready to keep the revisionist with him at any cost and then ultimately the mediation proceedings failed. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 filed an application for withdrawal of the petition filed by him U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and then this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 8-11-2024 was pleased to dismiss the petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no. 2 as withdrawn. the mediation proceedings

5. That on 22-1-2025 the revisionist filed an application before Learned Family Court, Lucknow for granting interim maintenance in her favour and also Rebuttal/Denial on behalf of Petitioner no. 1 (wife) against the objection of respondent dated 22.08.2023 filed against the interim maintenance application supported with affidavit.

6. That Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow 2 CRLRD No. 447 of 2025 the application interim vide order dated 17-5-2025 rejected maintenance of the revisionist on the ground that it has already been held that the revisionist is not entitled for interim maintenance. Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow has observed in the order dated 17-5-2025 that "चू ंिक न्यायालय ्षारा पूवर् में यह अवधािरत िकया गया है िक वािदनी भरण पोषण ्ऺाप्त करने की अिधकािरणी नहीं है और उ्व आदेश को अपास्त िकये जाने हेतु वािदनी ्षारा कोई ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है। पूवर् में यह भी अवधािरत िकया जा चुका है िक उभय प्ष ्षारा एक दूसरे पर जो भी आ्षेप लगाए गए हैं उनका िनस्तारण साष्योपरांत ही िकया जा सकता है। प्ऴावली वतर्मान में साष्य वािदनी हेतु िनयत है। अतः उपरो्व समस्त तथ्यों के ्ऺकाश में ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ सी-31 िनरस्त िकए जाने योग्य है। ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ सी-31 िनरस्त िकया जाता है। आदेश प्ऴावली वास्ते साष्य वािदनी िदनाँक 19.06.2025 को पेश हो।"

7. That after going through the order dated 17-5-2025 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow the revisionist became very much surprised because she was under the impression that the application for interim maintenance filed on behalf of the minor son of the revisionist was allowed by Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow vide impugned order dated 31-10-2023 and the application for interim maintenance filed on behalf of the present revisionist was pending. The counsel engaged on behalf of the revisionist before Learned Family Court, Lucknow too had told the revisionist that interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of Master Advait Jaiswal i.e. minor son of the revisionist and the application for interim maintenance filed on behalf of the revisionist is pending.

8. That thereafter the revisionist filed a Criminal Revision No. 752 of 2025 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the order dated 17-5-2025 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge-08, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No. 241/2023, U/s 125 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11-7-2025. The order dated 11-7- 2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 752 of 2025 is being reproduced below for the convenience of this Hon'ble Court - Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J. Learned counsel for the revisionist after arguing at some length submits that this revision may be dismissed as withdrawn so that he may avail the remedy if available against the earlier order. To which there is no objection by Learned A.G.A. In view of above, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn. Order Date: 11.7.2025

9. That the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 and she has no source of income to earn bread and butter for herself. After the order dated 11-7-2025 of this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 752 of 2025 the revisionist consumed some days in arrangement of money for filing the instant criminal revision. As soon as she arranged money for 3 CRLRD No. 447 of 2025 filing the instant criminal revision, she approached her counsel who immediately without any unnecessary delay prepared the instant criminal revision which is being filed before this Hon'ble Court."

4. Upon due consideration of the facts/reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of application seeking condonation of delay of 610 days, this Court finds that delay has not been properly explained. It for the following reasons :- (i) The order dated 31.10.2023 was passed on an application seeking interim maintenance by the revisionist for herself and for the minor. (ii) Vide order dated 31.10.2023, the Family Court provided the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to minor and in so far as the revisionist is concerned no relief was granted. (iii) At this stage, it is relevant to indicate that any relief not expressly granted is deemed to have been refused. (See: Explanation V of Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure) (iv) The revisionist, after above, filed an application (C-31) along with affidavit (C-32) seeking interim maintenance. (v) The aforesaid application was rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 17.05.2025 based upon the order dated 31.10.2023. (vi) To the view of this Court, the aforesaid application was preferred just to take benefit of the order for the purposes of seeking condonation of delay. (vii) The order dated 17.05.2025 was challenged before this Court by means of CRIMINAL REVISION No. 752 of 2025 and this revision was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.07.2025, which reads as under :- "Learned counsel for the revisionist after arguing at some length submits that this revision may be dismissed as withdrawn so that he may avail the remedy if available against the earlier order. To which there is no objection by Learned A.G.A. In view of above, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn." (viii) After the order dated 11.07.2025 the revisionist has approach this Court challenging the order dated 31.10.2023, whereby the interim maintenance was not granted to the revisionist. (ix) Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the firm view that it can not be believed that the revisionist was not aware about the fact that the Family Court has not awarded interim maintenance vide order dated 31.10.2023 and she came to know about the same only after passing of order dated 17.05.2025 by the Family Court.

5. In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that application seeking condonation of delay of 610 days in challenging the order dated 31.10.2023. passed by Family Court is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the revision is also dismissed. Cost made easy. 4 CRLRD No. 447 of 2025

6. Before parting, it would be appropriate to observe that the Family Court shall make all endeavor to conclude the proceedings in issue as early as possible. It is in view of the nature of the proceedings/case in issue as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, which are extracted hereunder:- "9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: this Court "In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)

16. "… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."

8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)

3. "Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife." two-Judge Bench

9. A in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)

15. "… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."

10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6) 5 CRLRD No. 447 of 2025

6. "… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."

11.Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".

10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."

7. The copy of the order be sent to the Family Court forthwith. September 9, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench