Smt. Sonia Varshney Alias Sonia Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1828 of 2025
Smt. Sonia Varshney Alias Sonia Gupta and another
…..Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
AFR
RESERVED ON: 08.07.2026
DELIVERED ON: 03.08.2026
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists,
learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for O.P. No. 2.
Facts of the Case
2. The revisionists, Smt. Soniya Varshney alias Soniya Gupta and Km.
Astha Gupta, have approached this Court by means of the present
criminal revision assailing the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 passed
by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Allahabad
(hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") in Execution Case No. 627
of 2023, whereby the Trial Court rejected the application under Section
128 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionists.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision
has been filed on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal
and has been passed without proper appreciation of the material
available on record. It is further contended that the impugned order has

2
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
been passed in disregard of the order passed by this Court and, therefore,
amounts to contempt of the order of this Court. Accordingly, a prayer
has been made to set aside the impugned order.
4. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the revisionists filed
Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002 on 23.08.2002, Smt. Soniya
Varshney v. Mukul Gupta. In the said case, the concerned Court, vide
order dated 23.10.2007, directed the employer of O.P. No. 2 to furnish
his salary slip. Against the aforesaid order dated 23.10.2007, O.P. No. 2
filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bearing Criminal Misc.
Application No. 26399 of 2007, wherein an interim order dated
28.11.2007 was passed directing Opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs.
18,000/- per month to revisionist No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- per month to
revisionist No. 2.
5. The maintenance proceedings in Case No. 365 of 2002 were
dismissed on 09.12.2010 for want of prosecution, whereas the
Application under sec. 482 Cr.p.c No. 26399 of 2007, was also
ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.05.2022.
6. The marriage between revisionist No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 was dissolved
on 20.05.2019 by a decree of divorce passed in Divorce Petition No.
1994 of 2008 filed by O.P. No. 2 on the ground of cruelty. The divorce
petition filed by revisionist No. 1 was also dismissed by the same order,
holding that the grounds of divorce raised by her could not be
established.
7. The case of the revisionists is that O.P. No. 2 initially complied with
the order of this Court dated 28.11.2007 up to May, 2019, but thereafter
stopped making the payment.
Submissions on behalf of the Revisionists
8. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that, in the aforesaid
factual matrix, the order dated 28.11.2007 is still operative. It is further
submitted that no specific period of operation of the said order was

3
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
prescribed therein. It is also contended that, even if it is held that the
order ceased to operate upon dismissal of Criminal Misc. Application
No. 26399 of 2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 19.05.2022, the
revisionists would, at least, be entitled to recover the arrears of
maintenance accrued prior to the said date.
9. In his written submissions, learned counsel for the revisionists has
stated that O.P. No. 2 not only left revisionist No. 1, his wife, but also
left revisionist No. 2, the minor daughter, when she was about two years
of age. Revisionist No. 1 thereafter bore the entire responsibility for the
maintenance and education of the minor child, who is presently pursuing
an MBBS course, and has incurred substantial expenditure towards her
maintenance and education.
10. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because the
wife is earning, she is not disentitled to claim maintenance from her
husband, particularly where the income of the husband is substantially
higher. It is submitted that the wife is entitled to maintain a standard of
living comparable to that which she enjoyed while residing with her
husband.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that the object of maintenance
law, being a measure of social justice, is to provide financial support to
the wife and children so as to prevent them from falling into destitution.
It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 is employed in a multinational
company and is receiving a substantial annual package. It is also alleged
that he has a shareholding in the company which he has deliberately
failed to disclose before the Court. Accordingly, it is contended that the
outstanding maintenance amount of Rs. 28,000/- per month from 2019
till date is liable to be paid by O.P. No. 2 to the revisionists.
12. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), particularly

4
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
Part-B of the judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:
“Guidelines/Directions on Maintenance
Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide
recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to
prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.
Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that :
"Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special
provision for women and children."
Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which
envisages a positive role for the State in fostering change towards the
empowerment of women, led to the enactment of various legislations from
time to time.
Justice Krishna Iyer in his judgment in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v.
Mrs. Veena Kaushal & Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 70 held that the object of
maintenance laws is:
"9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to
protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of
Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of
statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant
words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the
constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must
inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is
possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two
alternatives which advances the cause of the derelicts."
The legislations which have been framed on the issue of maintenance are the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 ("SMA"), Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973; and
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("D.V. Act"),
which provide a statutory remedy to women, irrespective of the religious
community to which they belong, apart from the personal laws applicable to
various religious communities.”

5
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
13. It is, thus, contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside and O.P. No. 2 be directed to pay
the arrears of maintenance and continue to pay the same in future.
Submissions on behalf of O.P. No. 2
14. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the
present criminal revision and, in his written submissions, raised certain
objections. It is submitted that no final order of maintenance was ever
passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Allahabad.
15. It is further submitted that revisionist No. 1 filed an application
under Section 128 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court seeking enforcement of
the interim maintenance granted by this Court vide order dated
28.11.2007, which, according to learned counsel, was not maintainable.
16. O.P. No. 2 had specifically pleaded that in Maintenance Case No.
365 of 2002 filed by the revisionists, no final order of maintenance had
been passed and that the said case had been dismissed for want of
prosecution on 09.12.2010. It is, therefore, submitted that the application
under Section 128 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist No. 1 was not
maintainable. The said application has subsequently been rejected on
merits by the Trial Court vide the impugned order.
17. It is further submitted that on 26.04.2024, revisionist No. 1 filed a
second Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being Case No. 409 of
2024, without first seeking restoration of Maintenance Case No. 365 of
2002 and, by filing the said second application, she had accepted the
order dated 09.12.2010 passed in Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002.
18. It is further submitted that revisionist No. 1 subsequently filed an
application for restoration/recall of the order dated 09.12.2010, which
was rejected vide order dated 19.05.2022 after hearing both the parties.

6
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
19. Learned counsel has further submitted that revisionist No. 1 is a
chronic litigant and has instituted various proceedings against O.P. No.
2. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 is residing in London and is a British
citizen and that he has incurred substantial expenditure in defending the
various proceedings instituted by revisionist No. 1.
20. It is further submitted that the aforesaid aspect has also been noticed
by the Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2019 passed
in proceedings under Section 24 C.P.C. in Case No. 36/34 of 2019. It is
also submitted that even after the decree of divorce dated 20.05.2019,
revisionist No. 1 instituted a criminal complaint bearing Case No. 980 of
2025 under Section 494 IPC, which is stated to be pending.
21. Revisionist No. 1 also filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.
8112 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of the
proceedings from Lucknow to Allahabad, which was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
22. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has referred to various other facts in
his written submissions. However, as the same are not relevant for
adjudication of the present revision, this Court does not deem it
necessary to refer to all such facts.
23. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 further submitted that, so far as the
applicability of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh is concerned, the present proceedings arise out of an order
passed on an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. This Court, in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction, is not required to determine afresh the
quantum of maintenance or undertake an assessment of the economic
condition of the parties. The limited question before this Court is
whether any enforceable order of interim maintenance was in existence
and, if so, whether the revisionists were entitled to recover the same.
24. It is further contended that though O.P. No. 2 was not duty-bound to
pay interim maintenance as ordered by this Court in the application

7
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.
26399 of 2007, to the revisionists after cessation of the said interim
order, he continued to make such payments for a considerable period. It
is contended on behalf of O.P. No. 2 that he is entitled to recover the
payment so made to the revisionists.
25. It is, thus, contended that the present criminal revision has no force.
According to learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, the revision is
misconceived, amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and
proceeds on a misinterpretation of the order passed by this Court.
26. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 further submitted that an interim
order passed in any proceeding is intended to operate till the final
adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties in that proceeding,
unless its operation is specifically extended. The purpose of an interim
order is to grant interim relief to a party till the legal rights and
entitlement of the parties are finally adjudicated. Upon final adjudication
or termination of the substantive proceedings, the interim order
ordinarily ceases to operate in accordance with the nature and terms of
the final order.
27. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the
revisionists lost their entitlement to claim the benefit of the interim
maintenance order dated 28.11.2007 passed by this Court in proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon termination of the substantive
maintenance proceedings in Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002 and not
merely upon dismissal of Criminal Misc. Application No. 26399 of 2007
on 19.05.2022. It is, therefore, submitted that the present criminal
revision is liable to be dismissed.
Question for Consideration
28. In view of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the principal question which arises for consideration before this
Court is whether the interim order dated 28.11.2007 passed by this Court

8
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
in Criminal Misc. Application No. 26399 of 2007 continued to subsist
and remain enforceable under Section 128 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of
Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002 on 09.12.2010.
Analysis and Findings
29. It is trite law that an interim order ordinarily operates during the
pendency of the proceedings in which it has been passed, subject to the
terms of the order and the final adjudication in those proceedings.
30. In the case of National Bal Bhawan and another Vs. Union of India
and others reported in (2003) 9 SCC 671, the Supreme Court observed in
paragraph 4 as under:
“4. It is no longer res integra that once a writ petition is finally disposed of

by the High Court, any interim order passed in pending writ petition merges
with the final order. If the respondents were aggrieved by the interim order in
terms of which the writ petition was disposed of, it was incumbent upon the
respondents either to have amended the memo of appeal by challenging the
final order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court or ought to have
preferred fresh letters patent appeal against the final order passed by the
Single Judge.”
31. In the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Banibrata Ghosh
and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250 it was held by the Apex Court
in para 28 which reads as follows:
“28….The Interim Order does not decide the fate of the parties to the
litigation finally, it is always subject to and merges with the final order
passed in the proceedings…..”
2. In the case of Prem Chandra Agarwal and another v. Uttar Pradesh
Financial Corporation and others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 479 it was
held by the Apex Court as under:-
“3….Once a final order is passed, all the earlier interim orders merge into the
final order, the interim orders cease to exist...”

9
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
33. In the present case, it is noteworthy that in Maintenance Case No.
365 of 2002, no order awarding interim maintenance was passed by the
Family Court. The Family Court had only directed the employer of O.P.
No. 2 to furnish his salary slip so as to ascertain his financial position
and capacity to maintain the revisionists. The said order was challenged
by O.P. No. 2 in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bearing
Criminal Misc. Application No. 26399 of 2007, wherein this Court
passed the interim order of maintenance. Subsequently, the main
maintenance proceedings in Case No. 365 of 2002 came to an end upon
its dismissal for want of prosecution on 09.12.2010. Resultantly, the
interim order passed during the pendency of the proceedings arising
from the said case cannot be treated as continuing indefinitely after the
termination of the substantive proceedings, unless otherwise directed by
the competent court. The order of interim maintenance dated 28.11.2007
also became infructuous de jure and the O.P. No. 2 was not duty bound
to comply with the same after that. But, unfortunately due to
inadvertence or lack of awareness, O.P. No.2 continued to comply with
infructuous interim maintenance order till May, 2019 and even on
19.5.2022 when the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing
Criminal Misc. Application No. 26399 of 2007 was dismissed for want
of prosecution, such a maintenance order became infructuous de facto.
34. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record
this Court has no hesitation in observing that the purpose of an interim
order is to provide interim relief to a party pending final adjudication,
though the final adjudication may ultimately be in favour of either party.
Once the matter is finally adjudicated, the interim order merges into the
final order. Interim relief granted in a case has no independent existence
and remains subject to the final adjudication. If the final adjudication is
in favour of the beneficiary of the interim relief, the interim relief
merges into the final order; however, if the final adjudication ends
against the beneficiary of the interim relief, such interim relief ceases to
be operative. Not only this, if the Court finds that, on account of the
interim order, one party has suffered a loss while the other has derived

10
CRLR No. - 1828 of 2025
an undue benefit, the Court may order restitution so as to restore the
position which would have prevailed before the interim order. In other
words, if the Court, while finally deciding the matter, finds that a party
has derived benefit from an interim order of the Court but has ultimately
failed in the proceedings and his claim has been rejected, the Court may,
in exercise of its discretion, direct such person to restore the benefit
obtained pursuant to the interim order.
35. In view of the aforesaid, this Court hold that the Trial Court would
not have been justified in allowing the prayer of the revisionist. The Trial
Court rightly held that the revisionist was not entitled to the relief prayed
for. We do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order. The present Criminal Revision fails and is liable to be
dismissed.
36. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed.
37. This Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by Ms. Gargee Mishra, Research Associate. She has
undertaken research on the factual as well as legal issues involved in the
present criminal revision and has rendered invaluable assistance to the
Court in examining the relevant facets of the matter and bringing the
pertinent cases laws to the notice of the Court. Her diligent research,
thoughtful assistance and sincere efforts have greatly facilitated the
Court in its consideration and adjudication of the issues involved.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
September 03, 2026
RPD
Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad