Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24630 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 489 of 2025 Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Kumar Shukla,Sandeep Kumar Shukla,Shivam Srivastava,Vibhuti Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Shri Rama Kant Dixit has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ram Vishal Tripathi holding brief for Shri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 3. By means of present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act the revisionist has challenged the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 701/11/2017 (Smt. Nanka Devi Versus Santosh Kumar), whereby the application of the revisionist under Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C./ 349 B.N.S.S. has been rejected 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party no.2 is his wife and their marriage was solemnized on 7.6.2011 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and after marriage the opposite party no.2 started living and cohabiting with the revisionist. 5. It has been stated that at the time of marriage the parents of opposite party no.2 has given dowry as per the financial status but the revisionist and the family members were demanded more dowry including a motorcycle and a gold chain against the opposite party no.2 and the family was unable to afford and give the said dowry the opposite party no.2 claimed that she was mentally and physically tortured. 6. It has been stated that the said torture continued for substantial life of time. 7. It is further stated that during the subsistence of first marriage the revisionist brought another lady and got married and started living with her as husband and wife. Though the opposite party no.2 has raised serious objection but all the family members of the revisionist were against the opposite party no.2 and on 6.7.2016 she was forcibly evicted from the house. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances a criminal case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed seeking maintenance and also for returning of the goods and money, which was given by the opposite party no.2 to the revisionist at the time of marriage. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich by means of the order dated 2.1.2020 after considering the entire facts passed an interim order directing the revisionist to pay an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance. Subsequently the revisionist had put in appearance and opposed the application for maintenance. In his application the revisionist has stated that an agreement was arrived at between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 and due to the said agreement they are living separately by mutual consent and accordingly it is further brought on record that it is as per the agreement the revisionist has got married again and for the aforesaid reasons filed the claim for maintenance. The opposite party no.2 had denied the existence of any such agreement or that she was ever a party in the said agreement. 9. The trial Court considered the objection for verifying the thumb impression of opposite party no.2 on the said agreement and the trial court was of the view that even if the allegations of the revisionist are found to be correct there is no reason to file application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act after marrying for the second time and merely to linger on the proceedings, he has moved application under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. for verifying thumb impression of opposite party no.2. 10. Before this Court the argument raised before the trial court has been reiterated. 11. Shri Ram Vishal Tripathi holding brief for Shri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the revision, he has submitted the agreement which has been filed by the revisionist himself in the proceedings for maintenance before the Family Court and it is the bounded duty of the revisionist to prove the said agreement for the satisfaction of the Court in the said proceedings. 12. It is further stated that opposite party no.2 has clearly denied the existence of the said agreement or that she is a party in the said agreement. He further submitted that it is unbelievable that a person who has married again will file an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for cohabitation with his first wife and accordingly from the facts it is abundantly clear that the agreement entered into the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 is prima facie false and fabricated and cannot be relied upon. 13. I perused the rival contentions of the parties, it is admitted fact of the case that application under Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist for verifying thumb impression of opposite party no.2. The trial court has given adequate reasons that the revisionist delaying the proceedings of maintenance and has accordingly rejected the said application. 14. This Court has considered the grievance of the revisionist, it is noticed that opposite party no.2 is the first wife of the revisionist who was physically and mentally tortured was not given adequate dowry and also the accused was not bearing any child from the revisionist. 15. It is on these facts that without obtaining divorce from opposite party no.2 the revisionist has contracted a second marriage and when the proceedings for maintenance vitiated by the opposite party no.2, the same was registered and entered into agreement between the revisionist and opposite party no.2. 16. The opposite party no2. has denied the said agreement and in order to prove the said agreement the revisionist has moved application under Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. 17. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the existence of the said agreement has been doubted by the trial court merely on the ground that it is on the basis of the said agreement he has contracted the second marriage and subsequently has moved an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against the opposite party no.2. 18. This court is of the view that the facts as stated by the revisionist are highly improbable and are not accepted in as much as he contracted the second marriage that there is no cogent reason for the revisionist to prefer the application under Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. 19. I find that as per the proviso the said section is applicable only to the person who has been arrested in connection with such investigation and proceedings. In the present case the opposite party no.2 has never been arrested in the said proceedings and consequently the existence of Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. would not be applicable or available to the revisionist. 20. Apart from above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the trial court and no satisfactory explanation could be given to the revisionist with regard to the subsequent application filed by him under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 21. For the reason aforesaid, I do not find any case on merits, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. . (Alok Mathur,J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench