HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1971 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of revisionist in the Court today is taken on record. 2. List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, however learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Present revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D. / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 4, Mathura, by which the revisionist has been summoned under Section 494 for getting remarriage with another lady. The name of the lady to whom the revisionist got married is reported as Meenu by the revisionist itself. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist got married after five days of the passing of the order of divorce dated 19.12.2022, i.e. on 24.12.2022 with another lady namely, Smt. Meenu. By a simple calculation, if the order of divorce was passed on 19.12.2022 and the marriage was solemnized on 24.12.2022, then, it is merely five days of the order of decree of divorce, hence by the submission of revisionist itself shows that the said marriage was solemnized within five days of passing of the order of divorce. He next submitted that opposite Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Narendra Pal Singh, Rajat Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Jay Pal Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) party no. 2, the estranged wife of the revisionist namely, Pushplata also got married to someone else and the revisionist has also filed certain photographs to this fact, which is annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. 6. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that as per the arguments made by the revisionist, the marriage was solemnized within five days of the decree of divorce and so far as the opposite party no. 2 was also got married with some other person is of no relevance and merely certain photographs of the marriage is also annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that it is matter of evidence and trial, whether both the sides got married after the decree of divorce was passed and hence the entire question of evidence cannot be decided in the present revision and prayed that the revision is liable to be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, as well as the other material brought on record, this Court finds that the decree of divorce was passed on 19.12.2022 and the revisionist has solemnized marriage with some other lady on 24.12.2022, i.e. within five days of the decree of divorce. Moreover, the plea of the revisionist is that the opposite party no. 2 also got married is a matter of evidence, which can be decided by way of appropriate proceedings before the trial Court, thus considering all the facts and the evidence on record, the present revision is liable to be dismissed and no interference is called for in the impugned order. 8. It is open to the parties to adduce their respective evidence before the concerned trail Court and the concerned trial Court shall proceed the matter in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant revision is dismissed. September 12, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 1971 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad