Allahabad High Court
Rajeshwari Pandey vs Poonam Tiwari on 6 June, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34829
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5060 of 2025
Petitioner :- Rajeshwari Pandey
Respondent :- Poonam Tiwari
Counsel for Petitioner :- Parmanand Sharma,Ajay Kumar Shahi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned for petitioner.
2. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party stand dispensed with.
3. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 18.02.2025 passed in proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case No.243 of 2022 whereby application submitted by petitioner for summoning of documents pertaining to his allegation of opposite party being employed in a particular School has been rejected.
4. Subsequently, an Application for recall of order dated 18.02.2025 was filed which has been rejected by the other impugned order dated 22.05.2025, primarily on the aspect that since proceedings pertain to Code of Criminal Procedure, Family Court is not empowered to review or recall its orders.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the trial court has ignored the aspect of admission on part of the opposite party of being employed in a particular School, to corroborate which, the application had been filed for summoning of relevant documents. It is submitted that the said documents had earlier also been filed by petitioner before this Court in previous Writ Petition no.5262 of 2013 and has also been appended to the present petition. It is however, admitted that the said documents were not on record of proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and perusal of material on record, particularly impugned order dated 18.02.2025, it is evident that the application for summoning of School records preferred by petitioner has been rejected primarily on ground that there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the pleading of opposite party being employed in a particular School. It is in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajnish v. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 that the parties have been directed to file their affidavits pertaining to their income and the Application for summoning of record has been rejected primarily on ground that there was no evidence to substantiate pleadings made by petitioner.
7. It is also evident that Recall Application has also been rejected by means of order dated 22.05.2025 primarily on ground that proceedings pertain to Sections 125 & 127 of Cr.P.C., under which there is no power conferred to either recall or review any order.
8. It is thus evident that impugned order dated 18.02.2025 has been passed primarily on ground that petitioner was unable to substantiate his pleadings with regard to opposite party being employed in a School, by any corroborative evidence.
9. This Court does not find any infirmity with order dated 18.02.2025 particularly in view of the admitted situation. It is also evident that direction has been issued in line with judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court directing the parties to submit their affidavits to substantiate their income.
10. It is also evident that by means of impugned order dated 22.05.2025, Application preferred by petitioner for summoning of record of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has also been rejected. Since appropriate material or evidence is not yet on record, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with aforesaid order leaving it open to court concerned, to summon record of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. subsequently in case it so thinks fit.
11. In view of such facts and circumstances, as discussed herein above, this Court does not find any infirmity with the orders impugned. However, the petitioner may exercise his liberty for summoning of documents in case he is able to substantiate by any documentary evidence brought on record pertaining to opposite party being employed in a School.
12. Subject to aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 6.6.2025
kvg/-
