Mere Filing Of Application U/s. 340 CrPC When Case Is Reserved For Judgment Won't Oblige Trial Court To Defer Pronouncement: Allahabad High Court
The Revisionist had approached the Allahabad High Court by filing a Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, Allahabad High Court
While dismissing a man’s revision challenging the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court, the Allahabad High Court has held that merely because an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is filed at the stage when the matter has already been reserved for judgment would not oblige the Trial Court to defer pronouncement of the maintenance decision.
The Revisionist had approached the High Court by filing a Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra (Trial Court) in a case registered under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The Single Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla held, “It is also remarkable that proceedings contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are independent in nature and are not connected with the adjudication of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Merely because an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is filed at the stage when the matter has already been reserved for judgment would not ipso facto oblige the Trial Court to defer pronouncement of judgment. It is always open to the concerned party to pursue the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. independently in accordance with law.”
Advocate Satyarth Agarwal represented the Revisionist, while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.
Factual Background
The Trial Court had partly allowed the application for maintenance filed by the second opposite party and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance to the second opposite party. The revisionist thus preferred the Criminal Revision challenging the quantum of maintenance. The revisionist also raised the issue that despite the pendency of the application under Section 340 CrPC, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the maintenance proceedings without adjudicating the said application and without affording adequate opportunity to the revisionist to establish his allegations regarding fabrication and forgery of documents relied upon by the first opposite party. Reference was made to the judgment in Amit Bajpai v. State of U.P. (2023) wherein it has been observed that where an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been filed, the proceedings should ordinarily be concluded only after the said application is decided in accordance with law.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that in Amit Bajpai (supra), the application under Section 340 of the CrPC had been filed on March 31, 2022 and was duly registered as a miscellaneous application. Despite the pendency of the said application, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without considering the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It was in the peculiar facts of that case that the High Court issued the directions relied upon by the revisionist. As per the Bench, the facts of the instant case stood on a different footing.The application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. in the instant case was filed only on July 22, 2025, after the conclusion of final arguments and when the matter had already been fixed for pronouncement of judgment.
The Bench further found that the endorsements made on the application clearly indicated that the proceedings had reached the stage of final adjudication. “In such circumstances, the Trial Court cannot be faulted for proceeding to pronounce the judgment without first deciding the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C”, it added.
Holding that the judgment rendered in Amit Bajpai (supra) did not advance the case of the revisionist, the Bench held that the said case had no application to the facts of the present case. According to the Bench, the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per month was not arbitrary, unreasonable or excessive, warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Finding the Revision to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:140373)
Appearance
Revisionist: Advocates Satyarth Agarwal, Siddharth Agrawal
Opposite Party: Government Advocate, Advocates Gaurav Dwivedi, Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi