Allahabad High Court
Maan Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:60711
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 493 of 2025
Maan Pratap Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
O.P. Tiwari, Ashish Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Finding reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application (Crl. Misc. Application No. 1 of 2025) seeking condonation of delay in preferring the instant revision to be satisfactory, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to this revision.
2. Heard Sri O.P. Tiwari, Advocate, who appeared alongwith Sri Ashish Shukla, Advocate, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.
3. By means of instant revision, the revisionist has challenged/impeached the order dated 10.07.2024 632 of 2019 (Smt. Deepa Singh and another vs. Maan Pratap Singh), instituted on 03.08.2019 in terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
4. It is to be noted that vide order dated 10.07.2024, the Family Court has awarded Rs. 2500/- per month to the opposite party No. 2/Smt. Deepa Singh (wife of revisionist) and Rs. 2500/- per month to the opposite party No. 3/Km. Aparna Singh (daughter of revisionist), till attaining the age of majority, towards maintenance from the date of preferring the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 03.08.2019. The operative portion of the order dated 10.07.2024 reads as under:- "?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ????-125 ?????????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????????????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??0-2500/-(?? ???? ???? ?? ?????) ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????-2 ??? ?????? ?? ???????? 2500/- ????? (?? ???? ???? ?? ?????) ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??? ?? 10 ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???-???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??, ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????"
5. Considered the aforesaid meagre amount awarded by the Family Court to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 vide order under challenge dated 10.07.2024 and also the finding recorded by the Family Court, as per which under compelling circumstances on account of ill-treatment by the revisionist the wife of the revisionist i.e. opposite party No. 2 alongwith minor was compelled to live separately, which has not been impeached in true sense, and also various pronouncements on the subject including passed in the case(s) of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314; Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor and others, (2020) 13 SCC 172; Chander Parkash Bodh Raj vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash, 1968 SCC Online Del 52; Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903 at page 347; Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129; Kalyan Dey Chaudhary vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 and Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahto and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 and also in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
6. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the instant revision is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) September 26, 2025 Arun/-