HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11798 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the private respondent, and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State respondent. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the order dated 20.8.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Dehat, in Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2024 (Neeraj Devi vs. State of U.P. and others). The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a suitable order or direction to set aside the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat, in Complaint Case No. 781 of 2023 (Smt. Neeraj Devi vs. Vinay Kumar Sachan and others). It has further been prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the court below to pass a fresh order in Complaint Case No. 781 of 2023 (Smt. Neeraj Devi vs. Vinay Kumar Sachan and others) for summoning and punishing opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent no. 2 was solemnized in the year 1992. However, soon after the marriage, respondent no. 2 started torturing and harassing her for demand of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The other respondents, being family members and in-laws of the petitioner, were also involved in harassing and torturing her. During the subsistence Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Dutt Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajkishore Singh Neeraj Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of the marriage, one son and one daughter were born out of the wedlock. However, no financial support was provided by respondent no. 2 for the upbringing and education of the children. Aggrieved by the conduct of respondent no. 2, the petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 781 of 2023 (Smt. Neeraj Devi vs. Vinay Kumar Sachan and others). The statements of the petitioner and her witnesses were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, the complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.11.2024 after calling for an inquiry report from the police and observing that the allegations, after a long lapse of matrimonial life, appeared to be exaggerated and fabricated. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2024 (Neeraj Devi vs. State of U.P. and others), which was also dismissed, affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2, is still living in destitution and is maintaining herself and her children with great difficulty. It was submitted that she somehow managed to solemnize the marriage of her daughter with financial assistance from her parents and relatives. He contended that both the impugned orders have been passed on erroneous presumptions and are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are false and concocted. It was argued that nearly thirty years have passed since the marriage, and the petitioner is not willing to cohabit with respondent no. 2. It was further submitted that the petitioner has taken possession of the respondent's house, compelling him to leave the house along with his aged mother. Learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by both the courts below are based on the material available on record, which clearly establishes that the allegations regarding demand of dowry are highly improbable and unusual. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the order passed by the learned trial court. 6. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. It is evident that a A227 No. 11798 of 2025 2 considerable period has elapsed since the solemnization of the marriage between the parties, and it is difficult to presume that a demand for dowry would continue even after a lapse of nearly thirty years of matrimonial life. 7. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld, and the present petition is dismissed. May 5, 2026/Mukesh A227 No. 11798 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad