HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4075 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No 2 as well as learned AGA. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 24.5.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2024 (Lekhraj Versus Smt. Dolly) and the order dated 11.1.2023 passed by learned A. C. J. M, Court No. 5, Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 572 of 2021 (Smt. Dolly Versus Lekhraj and others). 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act has been filed against the revisionist, who is father-in-law of opposite party No. 2. It is admitted fact that after the demise of husband of opposite party No. 2, who was the son of revisionist herein, opposite party No. 2 was forced to leave the matrimonial home and due to certain reasons, opposite party No. 2 preferred to stay away from the matrimonial home, since her husband already died and the circumstances compelled her to stay away from the matrimonial house. Another limb of the argument is that there is a first information report lodged against opposite party No. 2 for abetting the crime, as the husband of opposite party No. 2 died under mysterious circumstances and a case under section 306 IPC has been lodged against opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel also submitted that no domestic violence, whatsoever, was ever committed by the revisionist or any other family members of the family. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that as far as the first information report lodged against opposite party No. 2 under Section 306 IPC is concerned, final report has been submitted by the police and the same has been accepted. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shivajee Singh Sisodiya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar Sahu, G.A. Lekhraj .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) also submitted that the intention of the father-in-law is not bonafide and the father-in-law intends to shed away the share of opposite party No. 2 in movable or immovable property, which would have devolved to opposite party No. 2 under the Succession Act and that is the precise reason that opposite party No. 2 has been ousted from the family. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 further submitted that the basic intention behind the fact that opposite party No. 2 is residing away is that, the father-in-law of opposite party No. 2 intends to dispose of, alienate or change the title of the share of opposite party No. 2, which ought to have devolved to opposite party no 2, after the demise of father-in-law and mother-in-law, since the property as on date is the ancestral property of opposite party No. 2. However during the lifetime of the father-in-law and mother-in-law, the said property cannot be inherited by opposite party No. 2. However, father-in-law and mother-in-law, may change change the title, alienate or transfer the share of opposite party No. 2 and if they succeed in doing so, opposite party No. 2 would be left at the mercy of the God. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that only a sum of Rs. 2500/- has been awarded to opposite party no. 2 as monthly maintenance, which appears to be bare minimum and not on the higher side and that shall continue to be paid by the revisionist till his survival or otherwise when opposite party No. 2 gets employment anywhere. 7. Under the circumstances, the revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. However it will be open to the revisionist to seek further remedy, as provided under law, if there is any change in the circumstances in near future. March 18, 2026 HR CRLR No. 4075 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad