Allahabad High Court
Smt Sarita Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:203618
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5777 of 2024
Smt Sarita Devi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Priyadarshi Tripathi, Shrawan Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Satendra Kumar
with
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5843 of 2024
Ram Chandra
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Satendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Since the issues and law involved in both the criminal revisions are similar and also the impugned judgment challenged in both the criminal revisions is identical, both the criminal revisions have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment. Criminal Revision No. 5777 of 2024 is being treated to be the leading case.
2. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Kundan Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no. 5, Prayagraj in Case No. 236 of 2021 (Smt. Sarita Devi & Anr. Vs. Shri Ram Chandra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby trial court has rejected the claim of the revisionist/wife and awarded the maintenance allowance of Rs. 8000/- per month in favour of her daughter namely Asmita (opposite party no. 3 in the connected revision) from the date of application.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the trial court has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/wife on the ground that she is living separately without any sufficient reason as well as she has sufficient source of earning and she is able to maintain herself, which is against the fact and law. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2/ husband has performed second marriage, in this regard some photographs regarding his marriage was produced before the trial court due to the said reason, revisionist/wife is living separately from the opposite party no.2/ husband but the trial court has not been considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter. It is admitted position that the revisionist/wife has completed her GNM course but she is not in job. The trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, has recorded its finding, which is at page no. 5 of the impugned judgment that the revisionist, who is having degree of GNM, has been doing job on account of fact that the revisionist was doing internship from 2009 to 2014 in shifts, which is generally done by every GNM to develop their skill from time to time. However, the trial court has wrongly inferred the said internship to be her job. It is next submitted that there was no evidence adduced before the trial court qua the job, which is being done by the revisionist/wife. On the basis of such wrong inference drawn before the trial court, it has wrongly been rejected the claim of the revisionist/wife which is against law as well as facts of the case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 had been solemnized on 1.5.2005 and the revisionist/wife used to live at her parental house most of the time without any reason and from where she was completing her General Nursing and Midwifery course (" for short GNM). Despite the fact that opposite party no.2 has made all efforts to take the revisionist back to her matrimonial house, but she did not return to her matrimonial home. For taking her back to her matrimonial house, opposite party no. 2/husband also filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on 17.11.2019, thereafter revisionist/wife filed several complaints and also application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2. The above fact was also admitted by the revisionist in her cross-examination before the trial court from which it is crystal clear that no cruelty has been committed upon her by the opposite party no. 2/husband and his family members and without any reason, she is living at her parental house, but when she came to know that a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by her husband, just thereafter, several cases were filed by revisionist/wife against opposite party no.2 and his family members. As such, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected mainly on the ground that she is living separately without any reason at her parental house and she is able to maintain herself. He, therefore, submits that the trial court has recorded categorical finding of facts, which is based on correct appreciation of evidence.
6. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no2. submits that the trial court while passing the impugned order has not committed any error, therefore the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
7. On Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and after perusal of record, the trial court, while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist, has framed as many as five issues out of which Issue nos. 2 and 3 were framed i.e. (i) she is living separately without any sufficient reason and (ii) she is able to maintain herself respectively. While deciding Issue No. 2 regarding separate living of the revisionist/wife, the trial court has categorically recorded its finding in detail. Though before the trial court the revisionist has stated herself that she has not returned back to her matrimonial home because her husband has performed second marriage, but the no averment in that regard has been made by her in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or in her examination-in-chief.
8. A perusal of page no. 7 of the impugned judgment reflects that the revisionist herself admitted in her cross-examination that she has filed all the criminal cases, after the opposite party no. 2/husband filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'Act'). Admittedly, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the opposite party no. 2/husband on 17.11.2019 and application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist/wife on 08.03.2021, which reflects that before filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by her husband, she has no complain from her husband, even though she was living separately at her parental house/Maika and completing her GNM Course. The filing of petition under Section 9 of the Act by the husband is itself sufficient to show that she was not living at her matrimonial home and not ready to live with her husband and till that date, she has no complain from him but as soon as he filed under Section 9 of the Act, revisionist, thereafter filed several complaints and application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband by making false allegation again him.
9. On a perusal of the application moved by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it emerges that the revisionist has alleged that on 10.07.2019 at about 5:00 p.m., the opposite party no. 2/husband misbehaved with her and she was subjected to assault along with her minor daughter and thereafter opposite party no. 2 deserted them bot at Trivenipuram Ghat, Jhunsi by opposite party no.2. After being left at the said place, she went to her parental home along with the minor child. However, despite the fact that the alleged incident occurred on 10.07.2019, thereafter the revisionist has taken more than one year and six months for filing the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2021. The revisionist has not furnished any cogent or satisfactory explanation for this substantial delay of nearly one and half years. This sequence of events further indicates that the present proceedings were initiated only after the opposite party no. 2/husband had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act. This fact was considered by the trial court and on the basis of that fact, the trial court reached at the conclusion that actually the revisionist has no interest to live with her husband and she is living at her parental house on her own wishes and when the opposite party no.2 filed petition under Section 9 of the Act, she has complain from her husband and in connection with the same, she filed complaints and application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on false allegations.
10. The trial court has also relied upon the testimony of D.W.-1, husband and D.W.-2 Asharam, in which both the witnesses have deposed that after the marriage most of the time revisionist/wife used to live at her parental house.
11. So far as the Issue No. 3 qua the fact whether the revisionist/wife has sufficient source of earning and able to maintain herself?, is concerned. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that she is having a degree of GNM and several time, she has done her internship to improve her skill as she stated in her cross-examination during the course of trial. Hence, it cannot be presumed that the person having a professional degree especially GNM has no source of income. Page no. 9 of the impugned judgment reflects that the trial court found that revisionist/wife has worked as Nurse since 2009 to 2014 and no evidence has been furnished that she left her job.
12. On the above discussion and deliberation, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has returned categorical findings of fact which are based on correct appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court and this Court being a revisional court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law.
13. The findings recorded by the trial court, which are based on cogent and reliable evidence, suffers from no illegality or perversity. Accordingly, this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, finds no reason to take a different view other than the same taken by the trial court. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the revisionist/wife is living separately without any sufficient reason. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.
14. The Criminal Revision No. 5777 of 2024 lacks merit and, is accordingly, dismissed.
15. So far as the Criminal Revision No. 5843 of 2024 preferred by the revision/husband, is concerned, perusal of the record reflects that he runs a fair price shop (Kotedar) and 1500 unit ration card holders registered in that shop. It has also come in the evidence that revisionist has admitted that 50-60 quintal rice distributed by him and earns Rs. 90/- per quintal. It is a common question of prudence that a fair price shop agent not only distributes the rice but also some other edible items like wheat, pulses and etc. Apart from the above, the revisionist has some agricultural land from which he would earn some money. This Court cannot lose sight of the age of opposite party no. 3, namely, Asmita Parth who is about 10 years old, meaning thereby she is school going girl and her education expenses must have been increased.
16. Consequently, considering the current inflation, cost of living, food, cloth, education expenses, this Court is of the considered view that the total amount of maintenance as awarded by the trial court in favour of the opposite party no. 3, namely, Asmita Parth to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity.
17. Accordingly, this Court holds that Criminal Revision No. 5843 of 2024 being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 18. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Madan Pal Singh,J.)
November 14, 2025
Akbar
