Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 September, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161517
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4284 of 2025
Pradeep Kumar Pandey
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Neeraj Singh, Pradeep Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Aditya Sharma, G.A., Rajneesh Sharma, Tarun Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 84
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the revisionist today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and to quash/set aside the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Deoria in Case No.790 of 2014 (Smt. Sandhya Devi and another vs. Pradeep Kumar Pandey) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Salempur, District Deoria.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife and has a son namely Akash Pandey. As per allegation of opposite party no.2 she lived with the revisionist in the year 2009 and then she left her sasural and went to her maika and filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance in the year 2014. The learned trial court allowed the application and fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of minor child till he attains majority, total Rs.6000/- per month. He further submits that the son was born to her on 21.06.2010 whereas she left her sasural on 08.06.2009 it shows that his son was born after gap of more than one year and it also shows that she was living in adultery and the son was not born with the wedlock. He filed a case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act which was decided ex-parte in favour of revisionist but later on the ex-parte decree was set aside and the case is pending before the learned trial court. He further submits that learned trial court did not consider the statements of the revisionist/husband as well as the opposite party no.2/wife and also not considered the fact that when the wife left her sasural on 08.06.2009 how she gave birth to a child on 21.06.2010 after a period of more than one year. He relied his argument on Para No.11 of the judgment passed in the case of Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy in Civil Appeal No.9744 of 2014 arising out of SLP(C) No.5594 of 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this way, the wife who is living in adultery cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from her husband, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 04.12.2024 and allow the revision.
Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the argument on the part of the learned counsel for the revisionist is not tenable as the opposite party no.2 has stated before the learned trial court during the course of examination that she went to her maika on 08.06.2009 and gave birth to a child on 21.06.2010 but she also stated that in the meantime, the revisionist was going to her house in her maika. This shows that the revisionist himself has approach to the opposite party no.2, therefore, it cannot be said that she was living in adultery and gave birth to a child from some other person. He has also not disclosed the name of any person with whom she was entangled or with whom she was living in adultery. In this way, it cannot be concluded that she was living in adultery and gave birth to a child which was not from the wedlock with the revisionist. He also contends that a case u/s 13 for divorce is pending before the learned trial court in which he will have an opportunity for getting this fact decided and if the decree is passed in favour of the revisionist on the ground of adultery then he will have an option to get the present order cancelled u/s 127 Cr.P.C. He also contends that there is no need of getting D.N.A. test of the child since it is not in question. So far as the wife living separate from the husband is concerned, it is due to his neglect whereas he conducts the business of building materials and makes handsome income. The amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of minor child as fixed by the learned trial court can also not be said to be excessive or more than sufficient for their maintenance but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned trial court and the statement of opposite party no.2/wife recorded as PW-1 before the learned trial court, it appears that opposite party no.2 and the revisionist both are husband and wife and there is son/opposite party no.3 Akash Pandey regarding which there is dispute as to whether he has born with the wedlock of the revisionist or with some other person since the opposite party no.2 left sasural on 08.06.2009 and gave birth to a child on 21.06.2010. In this regard, on perusal of statement of PW-1 the opposite party no.2/wife it becomes clear that she has stated about the approach of the revisionist in her maika during the period she was living there from 08.06.2009. The revisionist has also not made any statement as to who was the person with whom she was living in adultery as a result child/opposite party no.3 was born on 21.06.2010. In such a situation, it cannot be concluded that the opposite party no.3 was not born with the wedlock of the revisionist with the opposite party no.2 and D.N.A. test can also not be directed in routine manner. In the case of Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy in Civil Appeal No.9744 of 2014 arising out of SLP(C) No.5594 of 2013, the husband made clear and categorical assertion in the petition u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act alleging infidelity and also named the person who was the father of male child born to the wife then the High Court directed the D.N.A. test to which the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed in that case but in the present case situation is different, therefore, D.N.A. test is not required at all. It is also to note that case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on this ground is pending before the learned trial court in which this issue is to be decided after trial. In case, it is decided in favour of the revisionist on the ground of adultery he would have an option to approach the competent court to get the order u/s 125 Cr.P.C. cancelled as provided u/s 127 Cr.P.C. but at this stage it cannot be held that the opposite party no.3 is not son of the revisionist and was born with some other person.
So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, Rs.4000/- per month in favour of wife, Rs.2000/- per month for minor child cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient since the opposite party no.2 has no any source of income to maintain herself and the minor child. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 04.12.2024 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
September 11, 2025
Ashok Gupta
