Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92422 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18308 of 2025 Applicant :- Sabir Husain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lila Wati,Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred against the order dated 07.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 1019/2018 (Nasreen Bano v. Sabir Hussain), under Section 125 CrPC, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, whereby the application filed by applicant under Section 311 CrPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. It was stated that during evidence it was revealed that opposite party no.2 was already married but her husband has gone missing and on the basis of 'Fatwa' issued by Mufti, she was held entitled for re- marriage. The applicant has moved an application under Section 311 CrPC to summon said Mufti but that application has been rejected by the Family Court concerned in an arbitrary manner. The evidence of said Mufti is necessary for just decision of the case. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that the impugned order has been passed by considering the material on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is well-settled that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are primarily civil in nature and all the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are not applied to these proceedings strictly. It is equally well-settled that in these proceedings, strict proof of marriage is not required. As stated earlier, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are primarily civil in nature though they have given place in the Cr.P.C. These proceedings are summary in nature and do not require same level of strict proof as in criminal trial. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a wife, children or parents by providing means of support. As far as question of jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is clear that Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at "any stage" of "any inquiry", or "trial", or "any other proceedings" under the Cr.P.C., or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, the Cr.P.C. has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. 7. In the instant matter, it appears that the opposite party no.2 has filed aforesaid case under Section 125 CrPC in the year 2018 and while that case was fixed at the stage of final hearing, the applicant has moved the aforesaid application under Section 311 CrPC to summon the said Mufti for his statement. The application has been rejected by the learned Family Court concerned by holding that what value has to be attached to the said 'Fatwa', is a matter of evidence and that can only be decided after hearing of the parties. It was further observed that if after hearing the parties, the Court comes to the conclusion that said 'Fatwa' is required to be proved by evidence, the Court would pass appropriate order at that stage. 8. In view of the attending facts and circumstances of the matter, it cannot be said that impugned order is suffering from any material illegality or perversity. The application has been rejected by a reasoned order. As stated above, the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and the same are not to be conducted like a criminal trial. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice so as to require interference by this Court. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Rama Kant Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad