Allahabad High Court
Veena ( In Judgment Smt. Veena ) vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 23 July, 2025
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42129
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 793 of 2025
Revisionist :- Veena ( In Judgment Smt. Veena )
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla,learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned family court has rejected the claim for maintenance of the revisionist on the ground that there was concealment of fact in regard to earning of the revisionist, whereas there was no concealment and on the date of passing of the judgement on 16.05.2025, she was not working. Therefore the impugned order is not sustainable.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed on account of concealment by the revisionist.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that the revisionist has filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her son and by means of the order dated 16.05.2025, the claim of the revisionist has been rejected on the ground that the application for maintenance was filed on 29.10.2020 stating therein that she has no means of earning and she has no technical knowledge, whereas it has been proved on record and admitted by the revisionist during arguments that she was teaching in Kriti Public School, Bhagwanpur, Ram Sanehi Ghat, Barabanki .w.e.f. 26.03.2019 to November 2021 where she was working between April 2019 to March 2020 and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and after covid Rs.7500/- per month but nothing could be brought before this Court to show that the findings recorded in this regard are illegal, perverse or against records.It is also noticed that considering the claim of the son of the revisionist and the respondent no.2, the same has been allowed by means of the said order. Thus, it is apparent that the application for maintenance was filed with material concealment of fact and it is settled law that material concealment is nothing but fraud on the court to obtain the order from the court.
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.
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."
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 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."
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. 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 maximsuppressio veri, expressio falsii.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.?
In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned order, which may call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2025
Akanksha Sri/-
