JUDGMENT : Rajnish Kumar, J. 1. In deference to the order dated 26.05.2025, the parties are present in person. 2. The respondent no.2 states that she does not want mediation in the matter because earlier the revisionist had filed Application under Section 4 82 No.1605/2023(Mohd.Faisal and Others versus State of U.P. and Another) challenging the charge sheet and the summoning order dated 06.11.2020 passed in Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No.3690/2020, under Section 4 98-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur. One of the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist in that case was that there is possibility of compromise between the parties being matrimonial dispute, therefore, this Court had referred the matter for mediation. However, the mediation failed because the revisionist was not ready to settle the dispute in the said case and thereafter the revisionist is also not appearing in that application before the Court and enjoying the interim order granted by this court. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that without disclosing this fact, this revision has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on the application of the revisionist and the only contention as recorded in the order dated 26.05.2025 is that there is chance of settlement, therefore, the Court issued notices and granted interim protection on deposit of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks, which has been deposited. Thus, the submission is that this revision is liable to be dismissed merely on the ground of concealment playing fraud with the court for obtaining interim order. Even otherwise the submission is that nothing has been paid by the revisionist till date to the respondent no.2, even after allowing the interim maintenance by the family court, whereas the respondent no.2 is residing separately on account of conduct of the revisionist since January 2019. It has also been submitted that in this highly belated revision, no ground for condonation of delay could also be shown. Thus the application for condonation of delay alongwith revision is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 4. Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Thus the application for condonation of delay alongwith revision is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 4. Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the respondent no.2. However, he submits that inadvertently the fact of reference to the mediation and conciliation centre in the aforesaid application before this Court could not be disclosed and pointed out to this Court and it can not be said that any fraud has been played. He also could not show any payment made to the respondent no.2 till date except the deposit of Rs.20,000/-, out of which Rs.15,000/- was paid to the respondent no.2 in the aforesaid application under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. No.1605/2023 and Rs.50,000/- in the present case. 5. In view of above, it is apparent that in this highly belated revision, in which office has reported a delay of 583 days in filing the revision, interim order has been obtained by the revisionist not only by material concealment of fact but playing fraud with the Court also because once the mediation had failed in a proceeding before this court, without disclosing the same and as to why the same has failed and as to how it is possible now, the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist as recorded in the order dated 26.05.2025 is that there are chances for settlement. But when the mediation had already failed before this court in another proceeding, the contention was misconceived and not tenable. It shows that the plea was taken only to obtain interim order. The counsels for the revisionist should also have cautious and refrained from taking such plea, once the mediation had failed before this court. At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it could not be disclosed as the revisionist had contacted him for filing revision against the impugned order and it was prepared as per instructions. However it is his first mistake and he will be careful in future. He is warned to be careful in future. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jeet Narain and another Versus Govind Prasad and others ; 2010 (110) RD 374 , has held that it is now well settled that fraud unravels everything. 7. However it is his first mistake and he will be careful in future. He is warned to be careful in future. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jeet Narain and another Versus Govind Prasad and others ; 2010 (110) RD 374 , has held that it is now well settled that fraud unravels everything. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Versus Joganath (Dead) by LRs and others; (1994) 1 SCC 1 , reproducing the observations of Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago that fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal held that it is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph 1 is extracted here-in-below:- "1. Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings." " 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Saumya Chaurasia Versus Directorate of Enforcement ; (2024) 6 SCC 401 , has held that it is an obligation on party to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and of advocate to fairly assist the court in carrying out its function and finding material concealment dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.1 lakh. The relevant paragraph 13 is extracted here-in-below:- " 13. It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasised that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practising in the High Courts and the District Courts. Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kusha Duruka Versus State of Odisha ; (2024) 4 SCC 432 , referring various judgments observed that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya"(truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. It has further been held that now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The relevant paragraph 6 is extracted here-in-below:- " 6. It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is “satya” (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It is nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that:“Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.” 10. In view of above, this revision alongwith application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost as no sufficient ground for condonation of delay could also be shown. 11. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently the revision is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1 lakh, which shall be deposited by the revisionist before Senior Registrar of this Court within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the same shall be recovered from the revisionist as arrears of land revenue by him forthwith. 12. It is further provided that Rs.50,000/- deposited before the mediation and conciliation centre of this Court shall be released and paid to the respondent no.2 on an application moved by her giving the details of her account, which shall be transferred in her account through RTGS after verification. The said amount shall be adjusted towards the amount of maintenance fixed by the Family Court. 13. It is further provided that out of the aforesaid cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.90,000/- shall also be paid to the respondent no.2, which shall be transferred in her account by the aforesaid mode on her application. 14. The aforesaid amounts shall be transferred within two weeks of moving application.