Allahabad High Court
Gopal Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 August, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146987 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4119 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused material on record.
This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.19, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2025 (Gopal Verma vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate IX, Kanpur Nagar by which the learned Magistrate has rejected the application dated 13.11.2024 filed by the revisionist in Complaint Case No.4401/2021 (Saroj Verma vs. Gopal Verma and others) under Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a complaint was filed u/s 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by opposite party no.2 against the revisionist who is her jeth. Further submits that for the purpose of deciding the application u/s 23 of the aforesaid Act affidavit in compliance of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324, was directed to be filed by the revisionist but he moved an application for exemption for filing of the affidavit and with prayer to summon Saurabh Verma the son of opposite party no.2 before the learned trial court. The learned trial court rejected that application by order dated 13.12.2024 against which he filed an appeal before the learned appellate court which was also rejected by order dated 25.06.2025. He also submits that the orders passed by learned Magistrate as well as learned appellate court are illegal, therefore, request to set aside the orders passed by both the learned courts and allow the revision.
Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the learned trial court has directed the revisionist to file an affidavit in compliance of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324 for making assessment of his income for the purpose of deciding the application u/s 23 of the aforesaid Act. There is no any illegality in this regard. So far as the prayer for summoning the son of opposite party no.2 is concerned, he is not party to the complainant, therefore, his summoning cannot be claimed by the revisionist. Learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the revisionist rightly. There is no illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and the orders dated 13.12.2024 and 25.06.2025 passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, it appears that learned trial court has passed the orders in question after considering the material on record likewise the learned appellate court has passed the order in question elaborately while considering all the aspects of the case. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid orders passed by both the learned courts but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed.
August 25, 2025 Ashok Gupta