CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 36 of 2023
PANCHU KANAUJIYA V. SMT. SUMAN AND ANOTHER
BENCH: JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
Indian Penal Code
|Section 498||Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman|
|Section 125||Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.|
|Section 155(2)||police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.|
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Allahabad High Court will rule on a significant legal issue regarding the legality of ordering paternity tests in maintenance proceedings started under Section 125 CrPC.
The appeal filed to overturn the decision made by the Additional Principal Judge in a case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to permit the paternity test of the child, respondent no. 2, was being handled by the Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta bench.
Suman, the first respondent in this lawsuit, wed the revisionist in April 2000. Radhey Shyam, the revisionist’s widower brother-in-law, moved in with them in 2008. The revisionist discovered Radhey Shyam in a compromising circumstance with his wife after Radhey Shyam grew close to respondent number 1 over time.
Even though the authorities forbade Radhey Shyam from residing at his house, he and his wife were frequently meeting. After that, the revisionist’s wife conceived a child. After she became pregnant, the family’s elders met for a “Panchayat” during which Radhey Shyam declared that he would take responder Nos. 1 and 2 with him after the child was born.
After the baby was born, respondent number two fled with respondent number one and the baby. The IPC’s Section 498 was used to file the FIR. When the police did nothing, the revisionist made an application to the Magistrate pursuant to Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., which was approved.
The revisionist submitted a motion to correct respondent No. 2’s paternity, which was accordingly denied.
The High Court determined that the subject warrants consideration and ordered that notice be sent to Opposing Party Nos. 1 and 2 through C.J.M. concerned, with a deadline of four weeks for a response.
In view of the above, the bench listed the matter on 27.2.2023.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AJAY ADITHIYAA N