Need 340 crpc reg...........
harish
(Querist) 06 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
DEAR SIR,
I NEED CITATION/REPOTER/BOOK WITH PAGE NO....... PLS IF ANY BODY PROVIDE....THANKINGU
High Court of Allahabad
Reserved
Criminal Revision No.6203 of 2006
Satendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another
Hon. A.K. Roopanwal, J.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.9.06 passed by the
Family
Court, Gorakhpur in criminal case no.340/03, Smt. Kanchan Gupta Vs. Satendra
Kumar
Gupta, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. whereby the court allowed the application and
granted maintenance of Rs.3,500/- p.m. to O.P. No.2 and Rs.3,500/- p.m. for her
son
from the date of the petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
It appears from the record that an application under Section 13, Hindu Marriage
Act was
moved by the revisionist against O.P. No.2 before the Family Court, Gorakhpur
and this
was registered as case no.54/03. The wife Smt. Kanchan Gupta also filed an
application
under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Satendra Kumar Gupta for her
maintenance and for the maintenance of her son and this case was registered as
case
no.340/03.
The case of the revisionist was that O.P. No.2 had neglected him and is not
taking his
care and therefore, their marriage be desolved by a decree of divorce. The Case
of O.P.
No.2 was that the husband had neglected her and her son and therefore, the
divorce
suit filed by the husband was liable to be dismissed and she and her son are
entitled to
maintenance. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of
their
cases. The trial court framed as many as six issues for decision of the case.
After
perusal of the evidence the trial court dismissed the application for divorce
which is not
the subject matter of this revision as the only prayer has been made before this
court is
about the maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by the wife. The
application for
maintenance was allowed in the manner stated above which gave rise to this
revision.
I have heard Mr. Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. K.K.
Mishra for
O.P. No.2 and perused the record.
Mr. Gupta argued that the trial court has wrongly assessed the income of the
revisionist
and has also wrongly fixed the quantum of maintenance, therefore, findings in
this
regard are liable to be quashed. In this regard he argued that the trial court
based his
findings on the basis of that record which was subsequently found to be not
reliable by
the court itself and therefore, the above findings should be quashed and matter
be
remanded back to the
court for afresh decision. The above argument was refuted
by the
other side.
A look at the impugned judgment would reveal that the findings regarding the
income
and the quantum of maintenance have been recorded by the trial court on the
basis of
the record of the income tax assessments for certain years relied upon by the
wife. The
husband challenged the truthfulness of these records by moving an application
under Section 340, Cr.P.C. even during the continuance of the proceedings but
the
trial court decided the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. without deciding
the
application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. However, after the decision of the
application
under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on 27.9.06 the same court decided the application
under
Section 340, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.2.07. In the last paragraph of this
order it was
observed by the court that the judgment in case no.340/03 has been obtained by
the
wife on the basis of forged evidence. The application under Section 340, Cr.P.C.
was
allowed by the court and criminal proceedings were instituted against the wife
and
others. Learned counsel for the revisionist says that in view of the decision on
the
application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. judgment passed in the proceedings under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to stand and therefore, this should be
set aside.
Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 argued that the procedure adopted by the trial
court for
the decision of the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is not a correct
procedure and
therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist
should not
be accepted.
In my opinion, it cannot be a valid consideration for deciding the controversy
between
the parties as to whether the procedure in initiating the proceedings under
Section 340,
Cr.P.C. adopted by the trial court was correct or wrong. The only consideration
for
testing the propriety of the judgment under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is as to
whether the
decision on the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. can be a valid
consideration or
not for deciding the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and in that regard
it can
safely be said that once findings recorded on the application under Section 340,
Cr.P.C.
have not been set aside by any competent court of law, hence, these findings are
binding upon the parties and in view of these findings this can very well be
said that the
evidence on the basis of which the wife got judgment in the proceedings under
Section
125, Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be a good judgment as this judgment is based on
that
evidence which has been held to be forged by that very court which had decided
the
proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, I am in agreement with the argument advanced by the
learned
counsel for the revisionist that the judgment and order passed in the
proceedings under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. registered as case no.340/03 are liable to be quashed and
the
matter is liable to be remanded back for afresh decision.
Accordingly, revision is allowed. Judgment and order dated 27.9.06 is set aside
so far
as it relates to the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. registered at case
no.340/03. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for afresh decision on
the
basis of the evidence on record. The parties may be allowed to lead fresh
evidence, if
they so like.
Dated:22.2.08
T. Sinha.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 06 October 2011
If you are in UP then there should not be any difficulty to trace out this citation from local journals as it is not available online.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 October 2011
iagree unable to trace the citation though judgement is avilable on net
archanafoundation.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 06 October 2011
I dont think this case was reported.
If a case reported you may obtain a certified copy or take the print out from the court website, and can use it for your reference.
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 06 October 2011
i do agreed with all learned friends reply
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 06 October 2011
This has been reported only in Manupatra at MANU/UP/0055/2008 and not in any other journal.
harish
(Querist) 06 October 2011
Thanking to every body for providing information and attention towards me.......
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 06 October 2011
Harish, my friend,
You have by now asked for atleast 10-12 queries on the same subject.
Go to a good library and get the journals of that year searched.
This is not exactly a citation for CrPC 340 as pointed our by Ld. Sardarsena.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
