Allahabad High Court
Smt Pushplata vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:157683
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2131 of 2024
Smt Pushplata
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Agnivesh, Jadu Nandan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Aditya Vardhan Singh, G.A., Nikil Pathak, Sunil Kumar Mishra
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ankit Srivastava Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 302 of 2021 (Smt. Pushplata Vs. Dinesh Kumar), whereby the court below has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist on the ground that revisionist is living separately without any sufficient reason.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the court below has committed illegality while rejecting the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C without application of mind. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that court below has neither considered the averments made in application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. nor the statement made by the revisionist on oath in examination-in-chief and, merely by referring to the statement recorded in her cross-examination, rejected her application which is not correct in the eye of law.
5. It is next submitted that the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 with sufficient cause and also on negligent on the part of her husband, as a married woman cannot leave her matrimonial home without any sufficient reason, but this aspect has not been considered by the court below. It is next submitted that the revisionist was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfillment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) demanded as additional dowry, which fact was duly proved by P.W.-2. She was also beaten by opposite party no.2 and his family members and was subsequently ousted from her matrimonial house on 1st March, 2021. In this regard, a First Information Report was also lodged by the revisionist, but this fact has also not been taken into consideration by the court below.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA have opposed the arguments as advance by learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that the revisionist is a women of peevish nature, she does not want to live in her matrimonial house and she has registered a false first information report even against her sister-in-law and other family members of her husband. It is further submitted that no such incident took place and she is living separately without any specific reason. It is next submitted that no additional dowry was ever demanded by the revisionist and his family members, and the main intention of the revisionist to scuffle with opposite part no.2 and his family members is for partition in the joint family of the revisionist. She wants to live with opposite party no.2 separately.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by court below, it transpires from the evidence that the revisionist was subjected to torture by the opposite party no.2 and his family members for demand Rs. 5,00,000/- as additional dowry and such fact has also been considered by the court below while referring to the the testimony of P.W.-2. In the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C, it has been mentioned that on 01.03.2023, opposite party no.2 demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- and also committed maarpeet upon her. Resultantly, the revisionist had lodged an FIR against opposite party no.2 and his family members. It is admitted by the opposite party no.2 at page no. 9 of the impugned judgment that the revisionist is living at her parental house since 28th February, 2021 and she has also admitted in her cross-examination that she is not ready to live with the opposite party no.2 at her matrimonial house in a joint family but she is ready to live with the opposite party no.2 separately on rental house or any other house except her matrimonial house from which it is crystal clear that her claim has substance. Hence the finding recorded by the trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. under the impugned judgment is totally perverse and against the facts and law.
8. 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 returned with regard to separate living of the revisionist from her husband and without returning such finding, as to how the trial court could come to the conclusion that the averments made by the revisionist were found unreliable.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahar in Case No. 302 of 2021 (Smt. Pushplata Vs. Dinesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is set aside.
12. 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.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 8, 2025
Akbar
