Mrs. Ritivic Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prajanya Raj Rathore, Ali Sheikh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Prajanya Raj Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, the learned AGA-I. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged validity of the order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No. 8, Family Court, Lucknow in Lok Adalat whereby an application (C-24) filed by the petitioners stating that the disputes between the parties have been resolved, she is living happily with the opposite party no. 2 since 27.11.2025, she does not want to contest the case and wants to withdraw it, has been allowed and Criminal Case No. 461/2024 filed by the petitioners under Section 144 BNSS has been dismissed. 3. Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the application dated 13.12.2025 had been filed through the learned counsel representing the opposite party no. 2. 4. The application bears the signatures of the petitioner no. 1, who is guardian of the petitioner no. 2. The application is written in Hindi language and in Devnagri script. The contents thereof, which have been reproduced above, are ambiguous and unequivocal. 5. In these circumstances, the Family Court has not committed any error or illegality in allowing the application filed by the petitioner and dismissing the application for maintenance as not maintainable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that immediately after dismissal of the case, the opposite party no. 2 again started ill treating the petitioners and they have again been thrown out of the matrimonial home of the petitioner no. 1. In these circumstances, the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. 7. Dismissal of an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or 144 BNSS as not pressed or as withdrawn would not create any bar against filing of a fresh petition in case fresh cause of action has accrued to the petitioners. Therefore, the order allowing the petitioners' application for withdrawal of the application for maintenance is not maintainable, would not cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner as they are at liberty to file a fresh application seeking maintenance upon accruing a fresh cause of action. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) May 6, 2026 Pradeep/-