Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 478 (ALL)

Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U. P.

2024-02-13

VINOD DIWAKAR

body2024
JUDGMENT Vinod Diwakar, J. In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2023 Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision is reported to be filed beyond time by 192 days. 3. Cause shown for delay is sufficient. 4. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant revision is condoned. 5. Consequently, the instant application is allowed. 6. Office to allot its regular number. In Re: Criminal Revision 7. The present criminal revision has been preferred seeking quashing of the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 12.3.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, in Case No.408 of 2006 titled as Smt. Soniya Saxena @ Seema and another v. Rajesh Babu Saxena, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and recovery warrant dated 18.8.2023 passed in Execution Case No.110 of 2022, P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut. 8. This criminal revision raises an interesting legal question. The family court issued the maintenance order sixteen years after the maintenance application was filed under section 125 Cr.P.C., contrary to statutory requirements which provides that an application for the monthly allowance for interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso of section 125 Cr.P.C. shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. When courts fail to perform judicial function in alignment with the objective of the statute then the issue becomes relevant for both, the administration of justice and the constitutional obligations of the courts. It assumes special significance in the model welfare state, committed to egalitarian values dedicated to the rules of law. But this issue cannot be decided in the abstract. This can be determined only against the background of facts which are outlined hereinafter. 9. The revisionist solemnized marriage with respondent-wife on 4.12.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs, and a male child was born out of the said wedlock in the month of September 2005. Soon after the marriage, the marital dispute started, and the relationship between the parties became strained owing to various reasons besides allegations of dowry demand and cruelty by the husband and relatives of the husband. 10. The respondent-wife was eight months pregnant when she was forced to move out of her matrimonial house, and she delivered a child at her parental house. 10. The respondent-wife was eight months pregnant when she was forced to move out of her matrimonial house, and she delivered a child at her parental house. The revisionist was informed about the birth of the child, but no one came from the in-law's family to perform any social and matrimonial obligation after the child's birth. Since September 2005, respondent-wife and her son has been living a life of destitution. Revisionist refused to pay maintenance for his wife and upbringing of the child, consequent upon the respondent-wife preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing Case No.408 of 2006 for award of maintenance before the Family Judge, Meerut. It reflected from the records that the parties to the litigation tried to settle the matter amicably but could not reach to any consensus; therefore, the revisionist preferred a Criminal Misc. Application No.9700 of 2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this court inter alia seeking to quash and set aside the entire proceedings of Case No.408 of 2008 pending in the Court of Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Meerut, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This Court vide order dated 27.4.2009 directed the revisionist to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the mediation centre, and out of the same Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid to respondent-wife and the balance of Rs. 3000/- shall be retained by the mediation centre. It was also directed that the mediation centre decide the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months, and stayed the proceedings against the revisionist-husband until 27.7.2009. The mediation report dated 26.7.2009 reflects that the parties were unwilling to do the mediation, therefore, the matter was posted for 27.7.2009, and the interim order granted vide order dated 27.4.2009 was extended till the next date of listing in favour of revisionist-husband, since then, the proceedings in the Criminal Misc. No.9700 of 2009 did not see light of the day. 11. In response to the maintenance application, the revisionist filed a reply stating that he is a class IV employee in the Electricity Department and earns Rs. 5,600/- per month only. Besides this, he has no other source of income. He resides in a joint family and has obligations to meet the expenses of mother, father, his younger brother and sister. He further stated that as respondent-wife wanted to live separately from the joint family; therefore, he had arranged a separate rented accommodation for her. 5,600/- per month only. Besides this, he has no other source of income. He resides in a joint family and has obligations to meet the expenses of mother, father, his younger brother and sister. He further stated that as respondent-wife wanted to live separately from the joint family; therefore, he had arranged a separate rented accommodation for her. However, she did not live with him and willingly left her matrimonial house and started residing with her parents. 12. The revisionist had also filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as Case No.21 of 2006, but the fate of this petition is not known as pleadings from both the sides are silent. The respondent-wife filed an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. C-18/2006 under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut, against the revisionist and his family members. Aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R., the revisionist-husband preferred a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12843 of 2006 for quashing the F.I.R. before this Court and this Court vide order dated 28.10.2006 stayed the arrest of the petitioner subject to payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife. The money was to be deposited every month within the first seven days of each month, and the trial court shall release the amount in favour of respondent-wife. The petition referred to above was disposed of vide order dated 20.3.2007 with a direction to the police to complete the investigation within three months from the date the certified copy of the order is presented before the Investigating Officer, besides other directions. He further states that respondent-wife is a graduate and earns more than Rs. 10,000/- per month by giving tuition to the students, and she is financially sound. 13. The Principal Family Court, Meerut, resumed the court proceedings in compliance with circular letter no.12 Admin dated 26.4.2018 (1) and after that, the case was heard and finally decided on 12.3.2021; the maintenance application was ex-parte decided in which the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- each to the respondent-wife and her son Uday Raj Saxena. [(1) Circular dated 26.04.2018 was issued in compliance with Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. C.B.I. case. (2018) 16 SCC 299 ] 14. 5,000/- each to the respondent-wife and her son Uday Raj Saxena. [(1) Circular dated 26.04.2018 was issued in compliance with Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. C.B.I. case. (2018) 16 SCC 299 ] 14. On 24.5.2022, respondent-wife preferred an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for the realization of the maintenance amount and vide order dated 18.8.2023, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut issued recovery warrant and, thus, that is how the revisionist-husband once again approached this Court through fresh revision/petition with a prayer to set aside the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 12.3.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Meerut in Case No.408 of 2006 and recovery warrant dated 18.8.2023 passed in application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. 15. Since 18.7.2006, i.e. the date of filing of the maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent-wife, more than 16 years have elapsed, and the wife has not received a single penny from her husband despite facing three rounds of litigation's; (i) in the year 2006 she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the same was challenged before this Court by way an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.9700 of 2009, which is still pending consideration, (ii) quashing of the F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. C-18/2006 under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12843 of 2006, (iii) proceedings initiated on application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned maintenance order arising from the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 16. The statute mandates an application for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings under the second proviso of Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of the notice and failing which the Court may take recourse of the provision of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for adopting coercive measures to implement the order passed in an application for maintenance, but unfortunately this has not been done by the Court. It is disturbing that the maintenance application was filed in 2006, it was decided on 12.3.2021, and Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for the realisation of the maintenance amount was decided on 18.8.2023. It is disturbing that the maintenance application was filed in 2006, it was decided on 12.3.2021, and Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for the realisation of the maintenance amount was decided on 18.8.2023. It is shocking to note that for more than 16 years, there was no order for a grant of interim maintenance, and the poor, destitute lady and her son have been consistently neglected by her husband despite having a sufficient source of earnings for their upkeep and upbringing. It needs no special emphasis to state that when an application for a grant of maintenance is filed, the interim maintenance needs to be decided within 60 days of the institution of the case. 17. The Family Courts Act of 1984 was enacted to facilitate the establishment of Family Courts. Its objective was to foster conciliation and expedite the resolution of disputes about marriage and family matters, along with associated affairs, by employing a radical and practical approach contrary to the ordinary lengthy civil proceedings. This enactment was undertaken notwithstanding the insertion of Order 32-A into the Civil Procedure Code by the Amendment Act of 1976, which failed to yield the anticipated outcomes. 18. The Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 , while highlighting the purpose of bringing in the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the legislature, thus opined: "13. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the case at hand, the proceeding before the Family Court was conducted without being alive to the Objects and Reasons of the Act and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. It is unfortunate that the case continued for nine years before the Family Court. It has come to the notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting adjournments in a routine manner as a consequence of which both the parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do not mean that the Family Courts should show undue haste or impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience and to be wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with a situation. A Family Court Judge should remember that the procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before it. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also gradually builds unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the Objects and Reasons of the Act and the scheme of various provisions pertaining to grant of maintenance, divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc." (emphasis supplied) 19. The concern and anguish were expressed by the Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 the Supreme Court was of the view that an application for grant of interim maintenance has to be disposed of at the earliest. When the wife applies for a grant of maintenance, the delay in the disposal of the application, to say the least, is an unacceptable situation. It is, in fact, a distressing phenomenon. These litigations can corrode human relationships not only today but will also impact for years to come, potentially taking a toll on society. The Court must have complete control over the proceeding and not permit the lis to swim the unpredictable grand river of time without knowing when it shall land on the shores or take shelter in a corner tree that stands "still" on some unknown river bank. The Court must have complete control over the proceeding and not permit the lis to swim the unpredictable grand river of time without knowing when it shall land on the shores or take shelter in a corner tree that stands "still" on some unknown river bank. It cannot allow it to sing the song of the brook, "men may come, and men may go, but I go on forever." This would be the greatest tragedy to the adjudicating system, which is required to deal with the most sensitive matters between the man and wife or other family members relating to matrimonial and domestic affairs. There has to be a proactive approach in this regard, and the said approach should be instilled in the Family Court Judges by the Judicial Academies functioning under the High Courts. The delay occurs due to the uncontrolled design of the parties or the lethargy and apathy shown by the Judges who man the Family Courts. 20. The object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who cannot support themselves and have a moral claim to support them. Section 125 Cr.P.C. measures social justice (4) . It is specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India (5). The object of maintenance is to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing, and shelter through a speedy remedy. It affects a man's fundamental rights and natural duties to maintain his wife, children and parents who cannot maintain themselves (6) . [(4) Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 ] [(5) Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 ] [(6) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. The State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636 ] 21. The maintenance allowance to the wife is the absolute maintenance right. The husband cannot absolve himself from his obligation to provide maintenance merely on the plea of financial constraints and inability to earn despite being able-bodied. 22. The maintenance allowance to the wife is the absolute maintenance right. The husband cannot absolve himself from his obligation to provide maintenance merely on the plea of financial constraints and inability to earn despite being able-bodied. 22. After carefully reviewing a string of judgments rendered by both the Supreme Court and the High Courts concerning the granting of maintenance to spouses, The Supreme Court, by invoking extraordinary power vests under Articles 136 and 144 of the Constitution of India, delineated structured guidelines in the celebrated judgement Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324 about the award of maintenance to spouses. These guidelines, meticulously crafted and expounded upon, provide invaluable direction to Family Courts in adjudicating matters concerning spousal maintenance. A copy of the judgment was also directed to be communicated to all the High Courts for further circulation to all the Judicial Officers for awareness and implementation. 23. The Supreme Court again in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023 vide order dated 6.11.2023, has further shown his anguish and held that the Courts below are not following the guidelines issued in Rajnesh's case (supra) in letter and spirit. The relevant portion is reproduced below:- "14. Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of judgment of this Court in Rajnesh's case (supra), which was directed to be communicated to all the High Courts for further circulation to all the Judicial Officers for awareness and implementation. The case in hand is not in isolation. Even after pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is still coming across number of cases decided by the courts below fixing maintenance, either interim or final, without their being any affidavit on record filed by the parties. Apparently, the officers concerned have failed to take notice of the guidelines issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance. Apparently, the officers concerned have failed to take notice of the guidelines issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance. Comprehensive guidelines were issued pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among courts when concurrent remedies for grant of maintenance are available under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindi Marriage Act 1955 and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded, enforcement of orders of maintenance including fixing payment of interim maintenance. As a result, the litigation which should close at the trial level is taken up to this Court and the parties are forced to litigate. 15. As in the case in hand, the impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and is bereft of reasons. In our opinion, the same deserves to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh. Ordered accordingly. As the respondent remained unrepresented, the High Court may issue notice for his appearance on the date so fixed by it. 16. Considering the facts of the case in hand and the other similar cases coming across before this Court not adhering to the guidelines given in Rajnesh's case (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate the aforesaid judgment not only to all the Judicial Officers through the High Courts concerned but also to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during the training programmes as well. Ordered accordingly." 24. The Supreme Court further directed that Rajnesh's case (supra) be immediately recirculated to all Judicial Officers through the High Courts concerned and also to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies for training programmes and upgradation of judicial skills. 25. Upon contemplation of the aforementioned guidelines issued in Rajnesh case (supra), this Court finds it imperative to further refine and elaborate upon certain aspects to ensure their effective implementation. This necessity arose in the matter of Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi (2023) SCC Online All. 2684, wherein the Court encountered specific nuances and exigencies warranting additional elucidation. 25. Upon contemplation of the aforementioned guidelines issued in Rajnesh case (supra), this Court finds it imperative to further refine and elaborate upon certain aspects to ensure their effective implementation. This necessity arose in the matter of Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi (2023) SCC Online All. 2684, wherein the Court encountered specific nuances and exigencies warranting additional elucidation. Consequently, in its wisdom and duty to foster clarity and efficacy in the administration of justice, the Court proceeded to issue supplemental guidelines to complement and augment the framework established in Rajnesh case (supra). 26. The purpose underlying the issuance of such guidelines in Smt. Parul Tyagi case (supra) was to ensure a cohesive and comprehensive approach to the adjudication of maintenance disputes. Secondly, it endeavours to equip Family Courts with enhanced tools and directives tailored to the evolving dynamics and complexities faced by the Family Courts. In essence, the issuance of supplemental guidelines represents a conscientious endeavour on the part of this Court to refine and reinforce the legal framework governing maintenance awards. The issue raised in the opening paragraph of the judgment may be answered by referring to the underlined paragraph in the Smt. Parul Tyagi case (supra), which provides elucidation on the matter. Examination of the insights offered therein could satisfactorily address the issue raised. The outlined paragraph offers valuable clarification, potentially resolving the issue. "51. Purity of judicial administration is necessary; a condition precedent for success of independence of administration of justice. In essence, the equal, uniform and consistent law application is the judicial administration's hallmark. The primary reason for enforcing superior courts' guidelines is to preserve the authority and credibility of the judiciary. If their guidelines are routinely ignored for whatever reason, it erodes public trust in the legal system and sets dangerous precedents. It can lead to inconsistent application of the law, which undermines the principles of legal certainty. 52. The non-adherence of the Supreme Court guidelines by sub-ordinate courts undermines the very essence of the rule of law, leading to unequal treatment leading to erosion of judicial precedent, perpetuating injustice and inequality, loss of public confidence in the judiciary by the citizens, and a fragmented legal landscape, where each Court operates independently. ****** 57. The enhancement of emotional intelligence is crucial for judges to better comprehend their own emotions and the emotions of others. ****** 57. The enhancement of emotional intelligence is crucial for judges to better comprehend their own emotions and the emotions of others. Family Court Judges must undergo comprehensive gender sensitization training aimed to fostering an understanding of gender-based violence, societal biases, and the unique challenges faced by women. Judges should also receive training on recognizing and comprehending the impact of trauma on victims of gender-based violence. Moreover, they should be educated/ trained in the concept of intersectionality, which involves understanding how multiple forms of discrimination, such as caste, class, and sexuality, can intersect with gender-based violence. Additionally, judges should acquire the skills needed to facilitate dialogue, negotiation, and restorative justice practices when appropriate, all while maintaining a victim-centered and survivor-focused approach. They should also be prepared to provide information and referrals to services such as counselling, legal aid, and shelters in order to aid survivors in their healing and recovery beyond their legal expertise. Notably, in 2016, the then Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India, Mr. Deepak Misra J., requested all High Courts to establish Gender Sensitization Committees tasked with sensitizing Family Court Judges and conducting regular seminars and training programs to enhance their skills. 58. The law established by the Supreme Court of India is indeed binding upon all subordinate courts in the country. Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to deliver judgments and orders that are necessary for "complete justice". It also states that these judgments and orders shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India. As a result, any decision or law propounded by the Supreme Court becomes a binding precedent for all lower or subordinate courts in the country, and they are required to follow and apply the same while deciding similar cases. This principle of law is crucial for maintaining consistency, uniformity, and the rule of law within the judicial system. ****** 65. As judges, it is essential to recognise the weight of responsibility that lies on judges' shoulders. Their decisions can profoundly affect the lives of those before the Court and society at large, and it is crucial to approach each case with sensitivity, empathy, and a deep understanding of the human aspect involved. ****** 70. In due course or over time, when a litigant finally receives some relief from the Court after a long and arduous legal battle, it may not serve the immediate purpose. ****** 70. In due course or over time, when a litigant finally receives some relief from the Court after a long and arduous legal battle, it may not serve the immediate purpose. By the time the litigant gets relief from the courts, they have already endured substantial hardship and uncertainty. The associated stress, financial burdens, and emotional tolls make a litigant disappointed. 71. The relief, though appreciated, may no longer hold the same significance or impact as it would have if provided earlier or more expeditiously. The delay in obtaining justice can diminish the litigant's sense of satisfaction and may leave them exhausted and disillusioned with the legal system. ****** 73. It is indeed regrettable that the trial court failed to grasp the objective of the pronouncement of various judgments in this regard, along with its purpose and the consequences of non-compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court time and again. This failure may be attributed to the substantial backlog of pending cases or possibly other reasons that an individual might attempt to justify. However, from a litigant's perspective, the Court represents a forum in which they place their trust and hope for their case's speedy and effective disposal. For them, seeking justice is not merely a legal process; it is a matter of utmost importance that directly impacts their life, well-being, and rights." 27. The courts should adhere to constitutional principles and legal precedents established by the Constitutional Courts, employing a consistent and rational approach. The underlying and fundamental tenet behind Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code aims to improve the financial circumstances and alleviate the emotional distress endured by a woman when compelled to depart from the marital residence. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. 28. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 12.3.2021 granting Rs. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. 28. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 12.3.2021 granting Rs. 5,000/- each to respondent-wife and her son and the subsequent order dated 8.8.2023 passed in Execution Case No. 110 of 2022 filed under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground inter-alia (i) order dated 12.03.2021 is an ex-parte order and he has no knowledge of the case pending before the Family Judge under Section 125 Cr.P.C., (ii) the respondent-wife is a clever lady and can maintain herself, (iii) the impugned order is ex-facie illegal and bad in law, (iv) the matter may be referred to Mediation and Conciliation Center as the revisionist is ready and willing to settle the matter, and (v) the Family Judge, wrongly calculated the income of the revisionist. 29. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the revisionist was working as a Patrolling-Man at the Power House, situated at Chandausi District Moradabad, in the year 2006 and is presently working as TG-II, Technician (Electrical) in the Electricity Department, Block Chandpur, District Bijnor and draws a salary of Rs. 61,691/- per month. The opposite party no.2, has also annexed a computer-generated salary slip of the revisionist, and additionally, it is also stated that the revisionist earns Rs. 50,000/- per month from agriculture. 30. This Court does not find any substance in the grounds taken by the revisionist because the revisionist has been litigating with the respondent-wife since 2006, and has approached this Court on three occasions: (i) challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.9700 of 2009, which is still pending consideration before this Court and did not see light of the day since July, 2009, (ii) proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12843 of 2006 for quashing F.I.R being Case Crime No. C-18/2006, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut (iii) proceedings initiated under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. by way of the instant petition for the realization of maintenance award; thus, the revisionist was aware about the pending litigation between the parties since beginning. 31. Additionally, the revisionist husband has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealed pendency of Criminal Misc. 31. Additionally, the revisionist husband has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealed pendency of Criminal Misc. No.9700 of 2009, pending disposal before this Court, challenging the validity and correctness of the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Meerut, in the instant petition. The proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. is in continuation of Section 125 Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is not ex-facie maintainable in view of the pendency of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 9700 of 2009 for the same relief. 32. This Court observes that the revisionist has filed a false affidavit along with the instant revision by giving an incorrect undertaking. The relevant portion of the affidavit is outlined under: "I, the deponent named above, do hereby declare that the contents of paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge; that the contents of paragraph Nos. 6, 8 & 12 of this affidavit are based on record; and those of paragraph No. 19 of this affidavit are based on legal advice; which all I believe to be true that no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed in this case." 33. The revisionist has stated that "no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed in this case contrary to the same, it was in the knowledge of the revisionist that a similar petition challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is already pending consideration before this Court, and it is reflected from the record of this Court that the Criminal Misc. Application No.9700 of 2009 did not list for hearing since 27.7.2009, therefore, the revisionist cannot say that he is not aware of the pendency of the maintenance proceedings and the impugned orders are passed erroneously-ex-parte, the fact of pendency of Criminal Misc. Application No. 9700 of 2009 and subsequent two orders passed in the said application was in the knowledge of the revisionist, and he intentionally concealed from this court in the instant case, therefore, it could be safely concluded that the revisionist was well aware about the pendency of the proceedings and intentionally did not appear before the Family Court to frustrate the maintenance proceedings. 34. 34. This would seriously prejudice the rights of the respondent-wife, firstly for the reason that she has been living a life destitute since 2006 along with her minor son; the revisionist was in a government job and very well aware of the rights enshrined in Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and chose to fight cases in Courts tooth and nail rather than discharging his pious obligations towards his son and wife. The precious time of her youth has gone into fighting in Courts and taking care of a minor son who was just born when the matrimonial dispute began, thus, deserves no sympathy by this Court. 35. The instant case is not a stand-alone petition before this Court, and if the arguments taken by the revisionist are acted upon and proceed with such frivolous petitions for the sake of entertaining, it will fail to fulfil our constitutional obligations. 36. In the light of the foregoing discussions, this Court deems it fit to record its anguish that the Family Courts are still passing routine and template orders on misconceived petitions/applications by ignoring the guidelines issued by the Constitutional Courts, and this is creating massive pendency besides injustice to the litigants. 37. In light of Rajnesh case (supra) and Adithi @ Mithi case (supra), the Family Courts are redirected to ensure that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the opposite party's response be filed strictly in accordance with enclosures I, II, and III forming part of aforementioned judgments. 38. In instances where the husband is employed within a Government Department, PSU, Municipal Corporation, Development Authorities, Boards, Corporations or Semi-Government Organization, the recovery should be initiated from the husband's salary through formal correspondence with his employer through the bank where the husband holds such salaried account, and in cases where the husband is employed by entities registered with the Registrar of Companies or Non- Government Organizations, operating as trusts, societies, or maintains salaried accounts, the enforcement of maintenance awards shall be facilitated through the bank where the husband holds such salaried account. This shall be accomplished by providing prior intimation to the husband's employer, in addition to the other enforcement methods as prescribed by applicable laws. It is emphasized that these enforcement mechanisms are provided for illustrative purposes only, and the Family Courts retain discretion to establish alternative enforcement procedures within the framework of the law. This shall be accomplished by providing prior intimation to the husband's employer, in addition to the other enforcement methods as prescribed by applicable laws. It is emphasized that these enforcement mechanisms are provided for illustrative purposes only, and the Family Courts retain discretion to establish alternative enforcement procedures within the framework of the law. The overarching objective is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of maintenance orders in accordance with legal provisions. 39. This petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is ordered to pay costs amounting to Rs. 25000/- to the respondent-wife. As per revisionist's request, the liberty is granted to approach the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, for payment in instalments. The Family Judge, Meerut, is directed to assess the petitioner's financial circumstances and ability to pay in instalments and shall pass an appropriate order in this regard, if required.