Shameem Jahan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 12619 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shameem Jahan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:204576
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4876 of 2024   
 
   Shameem Jahan    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Manvendra Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Anwer Jamal, G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the Court is taken on record. Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit to the same. As such, the averments made in the counter affidavit are taken to be record.

2. Heard Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Anwer Jamal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to quash/set aside the judgment and order dated 17th October, 2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 375 of 2018 (Shamimjahan & 2 Others Vs.Anees-uddin Ahmad Khan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Bindaki, District-Fatehpur, whereby the trial court has rejected the claim of the revisionist for monthly maintenance allowance from the opposite party no.2.

4. It is pertinent to mention herein that the trial court under the same judgment and order 17th October, 2023 has partly allowed the claim of sons of the revisionist and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month each to Abdulla Khan and Ayan Khan i.e. sons of opposite party no.2 and the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in arbitrary manner without considering the allegations made by her during the course of trial. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there is no dispute that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 12th November, 2012. He next submits that for only one reason, the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 at her parental house, the first is that since marriage, the opposite party no.2, his brother, sister and his mother being greedy started demanding additional dowry in the form of a Fortuner Car. Upon her refusal, the opposite party no.2 and his family members used to assault her and in connection with the same, opposite party no.2 who is having a licensed double-barrel gun, began assaulting the revisionist with the butt of the gun. Approximately three years ago, when the demand of additional dowry of opposite party no.2 and his family members was fulfilled, they kicked and beat the revisionist, snatched all her jewellery and clothing, and ousted her out of her in-laws' home while she was pregnant, along with her minor son, Abdullah Khan. Since then, the revisionist has been living at her parents' home, where she gave birth to her son, Ayan. Despite being informed, the opposite party no.2 did not return.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that before the trial court in the cross examination, the revisionist has specifically stated that when her brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to scold and beat the revisionist, she made complaint to opposite party no.2 about their actions but he remained silent and refused to intervene. Instead, he scolded the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 used to quarrel with the revisionist over trivial matters. The revisionist in the cross examination has also stated that she had filed a case against her mother-in-law in court. For fulfillment of the additional demand of dowry, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to harass and beat the revisionist with hands and kicks and opposite party no.2 used to beat her with the butt of the gun. In that circumstances, the revisionist has no other option but to live at her parents' house along with two minor sons.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that since such serious allegations have been made by the revisionist before the trial court against the opposite party no.2 and her in-laws, such allegations themselves sufficient cause for her separate living, but the trial court on the basis of a finding that the revisionist has been unable to substantiate the fact of her harassment due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry by opposite party no.2 and his family members, mainly on the ground that she has not filed any case against the opposite party no.2 and his family members for assault and harassment about the non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, has rejected the claim of the revisionist for maintenance allowance. Even though in the impugned judgment while deciding issue no.2 the trial court has mentioned the fact that the revisionist has also filed complaint case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 6018 of 2018.

8. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that without examining the aforesaid cause deeply as alleged by the revisionist for her separate living, the trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

9. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and rejecting the claim of the revisionist, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

10. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 is always eager to bring his wife back to her matrimonial house along with his minor sons but since the revisionist does not want to serve his mother, who is an old woman and also does not want to live with his brother and sister i.e. a combined family, the revisionist resists the opposite party no.2 that she will not come at her matrimonial house until opposite party no.2 separates from his mother, brother and sister.

11. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submits that the trial court while deciding issue no.2 has recorded categorical finding that the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 without any cogent reason. In connection with the same, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has invited the attention of the Court to page no.5 of the impugned judgment wherein the trial court has recorded that in the cross-examination, the revisionist has admitted that she would not go to her matrimonial house to live with his mother, brother and sister unless he lives separately from them. He lastly submits that the trial court has also find no substance in the allegation made by the revisionist qua harassment and cruelty on the part of the opposite party no.2 due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the revisionist is living separately without any sufficient cause.

12. On the premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since there is no illegality in the judgment impugned, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that it is an admitted case that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and Abdulla Khan and Ayan Khan are his minor sons.

14. There is also nothing on record to establish that the revisionist has any source of income to maintain herself and the opposite party no.2 has also failed to prove that she earns some money to maintain herself.

15. So far as the finding recorded by the trial court under the impugned judgment regarding the separate living of the revisionist with her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 is concerned, this Court finds from the record including the impugned judgment that it was specifically mentioned in the impugned judgment that when the revisionist became pregnant, she has been ousted from her matrimonial house by opposite party no.2 along with a minor son due to which she is bound to live at her parental house where she delivered her second male child. It also reflects from the impugned judgment that due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry in the form of Fortuner Car she was subjected to torture, harassment and assault on the part of opposite party no.2 and his mother, brother and sister. Qua the domestic violence, the revisionist has also filed complaint case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Such allegations made by the revisionist against her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 are so serious in nature which have been made by her in order to justify her stand of separate living. However, such allegations have not been examined by the trial court more deeply, while rejecting her claim under the impugned judgment.

16. This Court may also record that in Indian culture, no married woman wants to live separately from her husband and her in-laws without any valid reason along with her minor son. It is an admitted position from the impugned judgment that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 12th November, 2012 and when she became pregnant, she was ousted by opposite party no.2 just after nearly three years of her marriage and she has been forced to live at her parental house where she delivered a second male child. This means that what happened to the revisionist in just a few years that it became difficult and unbearable for her to live with the opposite party no.2 at her matrimonial house and why she does not want to go with the opposite party no.2 to live at her matrimonial house. From the aforesaid it appears that she is living separate from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 due to negligent on his part.

17. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial to the woman, hence it was enacted for the protection of every women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. Therefore, it is legal and pious duty of the husband/opposite party no.2 to maintain his wife i.e. the revisionist. The trial court should have considered the real intent of such legislation while scrutinizing the serious allegations made by the revisionist against her husband to justify her stand of her separate living but the trial court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

18. Mere from perusal of one sentence of the revisionist which was given at the time of cross-examination during the course of trial that she is living at her parental house on her own free will, the trial court has misinterpreted itself to come to the conclusion that she deliberately does not want to live with her husband and that she has no sufficient grounds to live separate. To understand the specific view of any person, it is better to read the entire paragraph given by him/her together and not by one sentence which has been given as answer in cross-examination in reply to a specific question. It is common prudence that when a person asks a particular question to another person, that other person answers that particular question. If a woman/man is asked whether she/he is living in her/his parents' house because of some pressure her/his parents, definitely, she/he will say that she/he is living at her/his parental house on her/his free will.

19. The allegations made by the revisionist are so serious and in the opinion of the Court, the same might be a sufficient cause for her living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 at her parental house as she is forced to live there, which were required to be scrutinized deeply by the trial court. There was discord existed between the parties for some issues. The trial court has not understood the real intent of the legislation.

20. In view of the above deliberation and discussion, this Court finds that the trial court has not considered such facts as observed above and has passed the impugned judgment while rejecting the claim of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to legal and correct in the eyes of law.

21. Consequently,Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 375 of 2018 (Shamimjahan & 2 Others Vs. Anees-uddin Ahmad Khan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Bindaki, District-Fatehpur is set aside only with regard to the claim of the revisionist and not for her two sons.

22. In order to achieve the real intent of the legislation, the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the Case No. 375 of 2018 (Shamimjahan & 2 Others Vs.Anees-uddin Ahmad Khan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Bindaki, District-Fatehpur, which is confined to claim of the revisionist only, specifically issue no.2 afresh in accordance with law and the observations made herein above, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

23. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations made above.

24. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

November 17, 2025

Sushil/-