Shivkant Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8527 of 2024 Applicant :- Shivkant Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Heard.

¶2The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "For the facts and circumstances as stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge III, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 982/2017,982/2017, under section 125 Cr.P.C, P.S-Phardhan, District-Kheri by which application of applicant under section 311 Cr.P.C has been rejected. It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned court below to give one opportunity for cross examination with PW-1 & 2 in aforesaid case and till then in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that during the pendency of this application, further proceedings in Case No. 982/2017, under section 125 Cr.P.C, P.S-Phardhan, District-Kheri at Additional Principal Judge III, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, may kindly be stayed and an interim order to the said effect may kindly be granted."

¶3The present application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 10.09.2024, passed by Additional Principal Judge-III, Family Court, Kheri (in short 'trial court') on an application preferred by the accused/applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying therein to recall the P.W.-1 and P.W.2.

¶4Brief facts of the case are to the effect that opposite party no.2/Juli Devi, on account of matrimonial dispute left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents and on account of financial crunch she preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. registered as Case No.982 of 2017.

¶5Before the trial court the opposite party no.2 was examined as P.W.1 and she was duly cross examined by the applicant on 01.09.2023, 03.11.2023 and

17.11.2023. Thereafter the father of opposite party no.2 was examined as P.W.2 and he was also cross examined before the trial court on 16.12.2023 and

20.12.2023.

¶6After the aforesaid, the applicant preferred an application dated

06.03.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying therein to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 for further cross examination.

¶7The trial Court upon due consideration of the facts of the case rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for recalling of P.W.- 1 and P.W.2 for further cross-examination vide impugned order dated 10.09.2024. The order dated 10.09.2024 is extracted hereinunder:- ""i=koyh vkns'kkFkZ is'k gqbZA iqdkj dj mHk; i{k e; fof/kd lykgdkj mifLFkrA foi{kh dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i=&84[k bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd mDr okn fnukad 17-11-2023 dks ih0MCywti&1 dk lk{; vafdr fd;k tk pqdk gS] ijUrq lk{kh twyh ih0MCywti&1 ls mlds }kjk dfFkr fookg ds laca/k esa dqN fof'k"V rF; ,oa fookg ds lkf{k;ksa ds ckjs esa rFkk mlds eq[; ijh{kk 'kiFk i= dh /kkjk&6 o 9 esa of.kZr dFkuksa ds laca/k esa rFkk ih0MCywti&2 eukst dqekj ds }kjk eq[; ijh{kk 'kiFk i= dh /kkjk&4 esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds laca/k esa Hkze o Hkwyo'k foi{kh ds vf/koDrk ds }kjk ftjg ugha dh tk ldh gSA ekeys ds U;k;laxr fofu'p; ds fy, mijksDr nksuksa lk{khx.k dks iqu% ftjg ds fy, U;k;ky; esa cqyk;k tkuk vfr vko';d gSA blesa okfnuh ds lkFk dksbZ vU;k; ugha gksxkA ;fn mijksDr ekeys esa mDr of.kZr lkf{k;ksa dks iqu% ftjg ds fy, cqyk;k ;k fjdkWy ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks U;k; fu.kZ; izHkkfor gks ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa lk{khx.k dks ftjg ds fy, cqyk;k tkuk vko';d gSA vr% izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS fd mijksDr okn esa lk{kh ih0MCywti&1 twyh rFkk lk{kh ih0MCywti&2 eukst dqekj dks iqu% ftjg gsrq fjdkWy djus dh d`ik djsaA foi{kh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ds fo:) okfnuh dh vksj ls vkifRr izLrqr dj dFku fd;k x;k gS fd fnukad 28-02-2024 dks foi{kh }kjk viuk lk{; lekIr fd;k x;k vkSj U;k;ky; }kjk i=koyh cgl gsrq fnukad 05-03-2024 dks fu;r dh xbZA fnukad 5-3-24 dks foi{kh vf/koDrk }kjk cgl u djds LFkxu izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;kA fnukad 6-3-24 dks foi{kh us U;k;ky; ij vkdj lwfpr fd;k fd mlds vf/koDrk vkt yap ds ckn nks cts cgl gsrq mifLFkr gksxsa] ijUrq yap ds ckn tc okfnuh e; vf/koDrk U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr vk,] rc ,d izkFkZuk i= /kkjk&311natiiztilhti dk ;ksftr dj foi{kh }kjk iqu% ih0MCywti&1 okfnuh ,oa ih0MCywti&2 okfnuh ds firk ls iqu% ftjg gsrq izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k tks iks"k.kh; ugha gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkZuk i= esa Hkwy ,oa Hkze ds dkj.k ih0MCywti&1 dh 'kiFk i= dh /kkjk&6 o 9 ij ftjg gsrq izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k gS] ijUrq muds }kjk fn;k x;k izkFkZuk i= vlR; gS] pwafd Hkwy ,oa Hkze ,d ckj ds fy, gks ldrk gSA ckj&ckj ugha] D;ksafd tc okfnuh us fnukad 02-08-2023 dks lk{; 'kiFk i= nkf[ky fd;k rks ml ij okfnuh ls ftjg u djds ftjg gsrq le; fy;k vkSj fnukad 01-09-2023 dks ,d ist ftjg dh rFkk fnukad 3-11-23 dks rhu ist ftjg dh xbZ rFkk fnukad 17-11-23 dks ftjg iw.kZ dhA bl izdkj okfnuh ls dqy 9 ist ftjg dh rFkk ih0MCywti&2 ls Hkh mldk 'kiFk i= fnukad 21-11-23 dks nkf[ky fd;k x;kA ml fnu ftjg u djds fnukad 16-12-2023 dks rhu ist ftjg dh vkSj le; fy;k rFkk fnukad 20-12-2023 dks ikap ist ftjg dhA bl izdkj dqy vkB ist ftjg fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ij djus ds ckotwn Hkh og okfnuh o mlds firk dks izrkfM+r djus ds m|s'; ls ;g izkFkZuk i= ns jgs gSaA D;ksafd foi{kh bl okn dks fuLrkj.k ugha gksus nsuk pkgrk gSA mudk m|s'; okn dks yafcr j[kuk gS vkSj ,slk iwoZ esa Hkh fd;k tk pqdk gSA foi{kh }kjk ftu fcUnqvksa ij ftjg djuk crk;k tk jgk gS] mu fcUnqvksa ij foi{kh ds vf/koDrk ftjg dj pqdsa gSA ,slh n'kk esa izkFkZuk i= fujLr djus dh d`ik djsaA lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA i=koyh ds ifj'khyu ls fofnr gqvk fd izdj.k esa mHk; i= dk lk{; iw.kZ gks pqdk gS rFkk i=koyh cgl ds Lrj ij yafcr Fkh] tc foi{kh }kjk mDr izkFkZuk i= vati /kkjk&311 natiiztilti okfnuh lk{kh la[;k&1 o 2 ls fookg rFkk fookg ds lkf{k;ksa ds laca/k esa iqu% izfrijh{kk djus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa okfnuh lk{kh la[;k&1 dh ftjg fnukad 01-09-2023] 3-11-23 o 17-11-2023 dh frfFk;ksa esa dqy 12 i`"B iw.kZ dh xbZ gS rFkk lk{kh la[;k&2 dh izfrijh{kk fnukad 16-12-2023] 20-12-2023 dks dqy 11 i`"B vafdr dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj Li"V gS fd foi{kh dks lk{kh la[;k&1 o 2 ls foLr`r izfrijh{kk djus dk iw.kZ volj izkIr gqvk gSA mHk; i{k dk lk{; iw.kZ gksus ds mijkar dksbZ uohu rF; izdk'k esa ugha vk;k gSA ftlls lanHkZ esa foi{kh dks izfrijh{kk dk volj fn;s tkus dh vko';drk gksrhA /kkjk&311natiiztilti U;k;ky; dks ;g 'kfDr iznku djrh gS fd og fopkj.k ds fdlh Hkh Lrj ij ;fn vko';d le>s rks fdlh Hkh vko';d xokg dks lk{; esa ijhf{kr djus gsrq vkgwr dj ldrh gS] ijUrq lqLFkkfir fof/k gS fd mDr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx fdlh Hkh i{kdkj }kjk vius i{k dh dfe;ksa dks iw.kZ djus ds fy, ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izLrqr izdj.k esa foi{kh dks okfnuh ds lkf{k;ksa ls ftjg djus dk iw.kZ volj izkIr gks pqdk gS rFkk mlds }kjk lHkh lkf{k;ksa ls foLr`r izfrijh{kk dh xbZ gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkZuk i= esa ;g Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gS fd og dkSu ls fof'k"V iz'u lk{kh la[;k&1 o 2 ls iwNuk pkgrk gSA ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd foi{kh }kjk mDr izkFkZuk i= okn ds fopkj.k dks iqu% izkjEHk djus rFkk okn dh dk;Zokgh dks foyafcr djus ds vk'k; ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA pwafd okn esa dksbZ uohu rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr mRiUu ugha gqbZ gSA ,sls esa fcuk fdlh mfpr dkj.k ds okfnuh lk{kh la[;k&1 o 2 dks iqu% lk{; gsrq ryc fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA okn cgl ds Lrj ij yafcr gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkZuk i= esa izLrqr fd;s x;s vk/kkj /kkjk&311 natiiztilti ds vUrxZr lkf{k;ksa dks ryc fd;s tkus gsrq i;kZIr ugha gSA vr% U;k;ky; dk er gS fd foi{kh dk izkFkZuk i= vati /kkjk&311 natiiztilti fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k foi{kh dk izkFkZuk i=&84[k vati /kkjk&311 natiiztilti fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs cgl fnukad 18-09-2024 dks is'k gksA mHk; i{k fu;r fnukad dks viuh cgl izLrqr djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA"

¶8In the aforesaid background of the case, present application has been filed.

¶9Learned counsel for the applicant impeaching the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the trial court says that as per settled principle of law the application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court and the order impugned is against the principle settled in this regard as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to expression 'Fair Trial'. As such, interference of this Court is required in the matter.

¶10Learned AGA opposed the present application. He stated that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved with sole intention to delay the trial, which is impermissible and in the circumstances of the case, the application has rightly been rejected by the trial court. Prayer is to affirm the impugned order and dismiss the application.

¶11The contents of the application dated 06.03.2024 preferred by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. being relevant are extracted hereunder:- ".Jheku th] mijksDr 'kh"kZd okn esa fnti&17-11-2023 dks ih0MCywti 1 dh lk{; vafdr dh tk pqdh gS ijUrq lk{kh twyh ih0MCywti 1 ls mlds }kjk dfFkr fookg ds laca/k esa dqN fof'k"V rF; ,oa fookg fd lkf{k;ksa ds ckjs esa rFkk mldh eq[;izsPNk 'kiFk i= dh /kkjk 6 o 9 esa of.kZr dFkuksa ds laca/k esa rFkk ih0MCywti 2 eukst dqekj ds }kjk eq[;iszPNk 'kiFk i= dh /kkjk 4 esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds laca/k esa Hkze o Hkwyo'k izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk }kjk ftjg ugha dh tk ldh gSA ekeys ds U;k;laxr fofu'p; ds fy, mijksDr nksuks lk{khx.kksa dks iqu% ftjg ds fy, U;k;ky; esa cqyk;k tkuk vfr vko';d gSA blesa okfnuh ds lkFk dksbZ vU;k; ugha gksxkA ;fn mijksDr ekeys esa mijksDr of.kZr lkf{k;ksa dks iqu% ftjg ds fy, cqyk ;k fjdky ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks U;k; fu.kZ; izHkkfor gks ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa lk{khx.k dks ftjg ds fy, cqyk;k tkuk vko';d gSA iqu% lk{; vkus ds mijkar ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks U;k; fu.kZ; djus esa lgk;rk gksxhA vr% Jheku th ds le{k izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd mijksDr okn esa lk{kh ih0MCywti 1 twyh rFkk lk{kh ih0MCywti 2 eukst dqekj dks mu ij iqu% ftjg gsrq fjdky djus dh d`ik djsaA"

¶12Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated 10.09.2024.

¶13The principles related to recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334; Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741:(2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828:2013 SCC OnLine SC 444; Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2013 SC 3081; State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others, (2016) 8 SCC 762; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

¶14It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with the care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and discretion given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

¶15The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, the Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

¶16In the facts of the case it would be apt to refer the observations made in the judgment(s) passed in the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra) and Ram Mehar (Supra).

¶17In the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross-examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in-chief is over, unless compelling reasons arc there, the Trial Court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant Shivde (2001) 6 SCC 135. In the case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667, this Court deprecated the practice of Courts adjourning cases without examination of witnesses when they are in attendance with the following observations:- "9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in Court he must be examined on that day. The Court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the Court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the Court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a said plight in the Trial Courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at a doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty. No sadistic pleasure, in seeing how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are standard on account of the dimension of his judicial powers, can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner."

¶18In the case of Ram Mehar (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "23. In Bablu Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2015) 8 SCC 787 the Court referred to the authorities in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC, Rattiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516, J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2014) 2 SCC 401, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 and other decisions and came to hold that keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest by conducting themselves in such a manner as a consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical one. It has been further stated that the law does not countenance a "mock trial". It is a serious concern of society. Every member of the collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. We may note with profit though the context was different, yet the message is writ large. The message is - all kinds of individual notions of fair trial have no room"." "38. At this juncture, we think it apt to state that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be sought to be invoked either by the prosecution or by the accused persons or by the Court itself. The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective. The cry of the collective may not be uttered in decibels which is physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already explained the use of the words "magnanimous approach" and how it should be understood. Regard being had to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of balance".

¶19Having considered the aforesaid, this Court finds that application was moved with sole intention to delay the trial and the process adopted by the defence is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is for the following reason(s):-

(i) The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be decided most expeditiously as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, which are extracted hereunder:- "9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: "In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)

¶16"… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."

¶8A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)

¶3"Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife."

¶9A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)

¶15"… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."

¶10In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6)

¶6"… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."

¶11Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".

¶10This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."

(ii) The object of the provisions contained under Chapter IX Cr.P.C., which contains Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide a speedy and effective remedy against the persons, who neglect or refuse to maintain their dependent wives, children and parents and further the second proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(iii) In the instant case the proceeding is pending consideration since 2017 and almost seven years have elapsed.

(iv) Some questions could not be asked during cross-examination, could not be the ground to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 for further cross examination. It is in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Shiv Kumar Yadav and another; ((2016) 2 SCC 402.

(v) The application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. is completely vague and was preferred only to delay the proceedings;

¶20For the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 10.09.2024. The instant application is hereby dismissed. Costs made easy. Order Date :- 24.09.2024 Jyoti/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench