HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4063 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2, and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the discharge application of the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected in Case No. 21511 of 2017 (Sachin Narula vs. Smt. Priti Saxena), under Section 494 IPC, Police Station Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on 19.42015, whereas the previous divorce of the revisionist had already taken place on 28.08.2015, which had been informed to opposite party no. 2 by the revisionist prior to the marriage. It is further submitted that the information regarding the divorce was provided on the basis of a document on a Rs. 10/- stamp paper. However, the revisionist has never presented or shown any document of the divorce order passed by any competent court of law. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has contended that charges were framed in this case on 12.12.2025. The revisionist has committed concealment regarding her marriage with opposite party no. 2. She did not provide any copy of the divorce order passed by the competent court of law to opposite party no. 2. She also concealed the fact that she had herself filed First Appeal No. 717 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court, which was dismissed in default on 02.08.2019. It is pointed out that the revisionist had obtained an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance from her first husband until 2019. 5. Learned counsel further contended that First Appeal No. 717 of 2012 was never withdrawn by the revisionist before this Hon'ble Court. It was dismissed in default due to non-prosecution by the revisionist. Hence, it may be presumed to be pending in the eyes of law, as it could be restored through an application for restoration. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds force in the contentions of learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. The revisionist has never provided the copy of the judgment and order of the divorce petition to opposite party no. 2. She did not inform opposite party no. 2 about the fact that she had filed the aforementioned First Appeal. She also Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Awaneesha Kumar, Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Shivam Shukla, Sushil Kumar Shukla Smt. Priti Saxena .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) concealed this fact. Moreover, she never filed any application for withdrawal before this Hon'ble Court, and her first appeal was dismissed in default, not as withdrawn on her own application. There is no bona fide appearance on behalf of the revisionist. 7. In view of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the revision is liable to be dismissed, and it is dismissed accordingly. March 16, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 4063 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad