Smt Arjumand Ara vs State Of U.P And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10113 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Arjumand Ara vs State Of U.P And Another on 3 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154926
 
Reserved on 13.08.2025
 
Delivered on 03.09.2025
 
Court No. 91
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1023 of 2024 
 

 
Revisionist :- Smt Arjumand Ara 
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another 
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Asif 
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajitam Srivastav,G.A.,Satyendra Nath Tripathi 
 
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 
 

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Asif, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Satendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family, Court No.1, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 873 of 2019 (Smt. Arjumand Ara vs. Abdullha Khan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, by which the application filed by the revisionist for maintenance has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist got married to the opposite party no.2 (husband) on 08.12.2012 according to the Muslim Rites and Rituals. Since very beginning from the marriage, the opposite party no.2 as well as his family members started demanding dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a Swift Car, and also use to harass her and had given ill-treatment to the revisionist. The in-laws of the revisionist was not happy with the articles and items given in the marriage and started taunting the revisionist for the same. The revisionist used to complain about this fact to her parents, on that her parents visited the revisionists matrimonial house to convince her in-laws but they did not agree. Later, the revisionist had been badly beaten by the opposite party no.2 (husband) along with his other family members and ousted her from matrimonial house on 22.02.2018 and since then she is residing at her parental house.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is a husband of the revisionist, who is a Government Employee and working on the post of Inspector in Border Security Force in National Disaster Relief Force (N.D.R.F.), having an income of Rs.78,000/- per month and he has 10 bigahs agricultural land and earning a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 per annum.

5. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has kicked away the revisionist from his house in February, 2015 and since then the revisionist is residing at her parental home and opposite party no.2 is not paying a single penny as maintenance to her. Thereafter, she filed an application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the court below vide order dated 01.02.2024.

6. The learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the trial court without proper appreciation of evidence adduced by the revisionist, rejected the application of the revisionist, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the trial court for deciding the same afresh.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that he is ready to argue the case without filing any counter affidavit, accordingly, he submits that all the evidence adduced by the parties have been scrutinized by the trial court in a right perspective, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Honble Court and the instant criminal revision deserves to be dismissed.

11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that since the date of marriage and up to the filing of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has never made any kind of complaint either to the police or any other competent authority regarding demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment being caused by the opposite party no.2 and his other family members, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference by this Honble Court.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. From the perusal of the judgment and order of the trial court, it is mentioned at page no.21 that the revisionist is having the degree of B. Com., she is house wife and she has no means to maintain herself, even though the trial court has not considered this aspect of the matter and rejected the claim of the revisionist for grant of maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

14. So far as the reason of separate living by the revisionist from her husband is concerned, perusal of the judgment and the evidence available on record reflects that the marriage of the revisionist with the opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 08.12.2012 and the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist on 16.10.2019, meaning thereby the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated after seven years of the marriage.

15. It also transpires from the judgment that while deciding the issue no.2 the court below in sub-para (vii) has mentioned that the opposite party no.2 also admitted that up to seven years from the date of marriage no complaint has been made by the revisionist regarding any kind of torture and harassment. From the above admission, it is clear that the marriage of the revisionist with the opposite party no.2 was going peacefully for a period of seven years i.e. up to the year 2019, if she had any intention to live separately without any reason from her husband, she would have filed the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. much prior to the 16.10.2019 alleging therein the grounds of cruelty and harassment being caused by the opposite party no.2 and his other family members.

16. The revisionist has specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that family members of her in-law were not happy with the articles given by her father as dowry and she was subjected to cruelty or taunt by the members of the family. She has further mentioned in her examination-in-chief that her father got her treated in a hospital situated at Ghaziabad and after treatment sent her to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, her in-laws started torturing and harassing her on account of the fact that she is under the impression of exorcism. However, the opposite party no.2 has tried to rebut the allegations made by the revisionist but from the record, it does not transpire that the opposite party no. 2 has ever made any serious effort to bring the revisionist back from her parental house. No married woman would like to live separately from her husband without sufficient reason unless repeatedly harassed or compelled to do so.

17. During the proceedings before the trial court, the revisionist in her examination-in-chief has further stated that she has no source of income to live separately from her husband/opposite party no.2 and the said fact neither rebutted nor cross-examined by the opposite party no.2 at any stage but the trial court at page no. 20 of the judgment i.e. in sub-paragraph (xviii) of the judgment held that in case the averments of the revisionist has not been rebutted or cross-examined by the opposite party no.2, it cannot be presumed that her claim has been proved itself, hence this finding of the trial court is totally perverse and against the facts.

18. Though the trial court in the impugned order has discussed all the arguments of both the parties at length but no specific and reasonable finding has been given with regard to separate living of the revisionist from her husband and why the averments made by the revisionist were found unreliable.

19. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is beneficial for the woman and the intent of the legislation is to provide safety and security to the wife and children, until and unless there is any cogent and concrete evidence with regard to the separate living is available on record, the separate living of the wife cannot be considered.

20. It is a common question of prudence that a married woman will not disturb her matrimonial life, unless the circumstances becomes unbearable. Further strict proof of evidence like in criminal matters are not applicable in the matrimonial cases as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a quasi civil in nature and the matter of matrimonial cases should be decided by lenient view but the trial court has adopted a very hyper technical approach regarding scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the revisionist, hence in view of above, the findings recorded by the trial court is perverse and against the facts, hence liable to be set aside.

21. Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 01.02.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family, Court No.1, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 873 of 2019 (Smt. Arjumand Ara vs. Abdullha Khan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad is set aside.

22. The trial court is directed to hear and decide the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned to adduce their evidences, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it

Order Date : 03.09.2025

Prajapati RK

(Madan Pal Singh, J.)