Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17912 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 13 of 2025 Revisionist :- Pradeep Dhama Opposite Party :- Sri Bal Krishna @ Rinku Pandey And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay,Rama Shankar Mishra Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. The instant civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur in R.S. No.51/2025, whereby a decree has been passed in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955'), wherein the private-respondents No.1 and 2 were parties. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the revisionist as to how the revisionist is aggrieved and as to whether he has locus standi to assail an order passed under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 between the two private persons relating to dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. In responding to the aforesaid query, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there were certain disputes between the revisionist and the private-respondents and in pursuance whereof, an FIR came to be lodged against the revisionist bearing FIR/Case Crime No.443/2024. The revisionist had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Coordinate Bench of this Court which was registered as Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.220 of 2024 [Pradeep Dhama v. State of U.P. & Anr.], wherein by means of the order dated 12.12.2024, the revisionist was granted anticipatory bail with certain conditions including that the parties shall attempt a mediation in order to resolve the dispute. It is further urged that in the aforesaid circumstances where the private-respondents No.1 and 2 were the husband and wife, initiated proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955, which has been allowed by means of the order dated 30.01.2025 and it is now urged that since a decree of divorce has been granted, the private-respondent No.2 taking note of the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the anticipatory bail application, more particularly in Paragraph-4 of the said order, is pressuring the revisionist to marry with the private-respondent No.2. It is urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, the revisionist has the locus standi to challenge the order dated 30.01.2025, whereby the marriage between the private-respondents No.1 and 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent. It is further submitted that without waiting or exemption of the cooling period, the order dated 30.01.2025 has been passed which is per se illegal. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.23298 (M/S) of 2016 [Yogendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.], which came to be decided on 27.09.2016 and reliance has been placed on the observations of the Court to indicate where there is some illegality, the Court will not shut its eyes on the apparent illegality and the scope of locus standi may not be pressed in such cases and such dictum is to be followed in the instant case. Having considered the submissions and also perusal of the material on record, apparently, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist in Yogendra Singh (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. The said case was a matter which was before the Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and related to a matter regarding allotment of fair price shop where there were two contesting parties. It is in this context that the observations have been made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court which is not applicable inasmuch as the present proceedings are under Section 115 CPC, whereby a decree between the private-respondents No.1 and 2 is sought to be challenged by the revisionist who is complete stranger to the proceedings. Thus, this Court is of the view that the said dictum in Yogendra Singh (supra) has no applicability. If other part of the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is examined, it would reveal that it is not disputed that the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 would only be maintainable between the husband and wife, who are the private-respondents No.1 and 2. In case, if they are aggrieved with their marriage then by mutual consent, they can file a petition which is a cause of action which is particularly available to the said respondents and the present revisionist has no right to intervene. Moreover, any observations made in the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in anticipatory bail application is concerned, this is not the subject matter nor can be made subject matter of the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 which was a private matter between the private-respondents No.1 and 2. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the instant revision, at the behest of the revisionist, is completely misconceived. It is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench