Allahabad High Court
Kiran Kumari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:171978
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1509 of 2024
Kiran Kumari
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Amarnath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Aishanath Singh, G.A., Shiv Kumar Pal
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist in Court today be kept on record.
2. Heard Shri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Sakshi Srivastava, holding brief of Shri Shiv Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-opposite party no. 1 and perusal the material on record.
3. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli in Maintenance Case No. 173 of 2019 (Smt. Kiran Kumari Vs. Indrasani Singh Chauhan) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Alinagar, District- Chandauli, by which the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that she is having degree of M.A. and did Midwife course and she is well educated than her husband and she is able to maintain herself.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the findings of the trial court is incorrect. During the course of the argument it is admitted that she has done midwife course and runs a nursing home prior to her marriage and at the time of the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she was not in job/profession. She has no source of income. Learned counsel further submitted that she was badly beaten by her husband and administered poison and thereafter got admitted her in a Maxwell Hospital on 08.04.2019. Since the revisionist has no source of income and she is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2, therefore, it is the legal and pious duty of the opposite party no.2 to maintain his wife. In this regard, the findings recorded by the trial court is against the facts and law.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that it is admitted by the revisionist in her examination-in-chief that she earlier married to one Bhaiya Lal and thereafter she performed marriage with the opposite party no.2 in the year 2014. She also admitted that there is no judicial separation prior to the second marriage. She further admitted that she did not disclose these facts in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The tenor of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is that the revisionist had concealed the true and correct facts in respect of her earlier marriage with Bhaiya Lal and without getting a decree of divorce from her earlier husband, she performed the marriage with the opposite party no.2, which is legally not permissible, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the opposite party no.2.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further submitted that the findings of the trial court that the revisionist is highly educated lady having MA degree and course of Midwife and she was also running a nursing home at Ahraura and therefore, the conclusion of the trial court that she is having sufficient means of livelihood is correct and does not require any interference by this Court. One more argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist is living in adultery. She admitted in her statement that she left her matrimonial home after two and half months and thereafter she never come back to her matrimonial home but at that time she was having seven month pregnancy and this fact was also considered by the trial court and on this premise also she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the opposite party no.2.
7. Learned AGA has also adopted the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
8. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it transpires that the trial court while deciding issue no.5 'whether the applicant-revisionist is able to maintain herself or not' no definite finding has been given by the trial court in this regard. Moreover, the trial court has not given its finding regarding issue of adultery. Apart from it, this fact was also before the trial court that she was earlier married to one Bhaiya Lal and on this fact also no clear finding has been given by the trial court 'whether without getting divorced her earlier husband, how she could perform the second marriage with opposite party no.2'. However, in paragraph-22 of the judgment, it was mentioned that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 18.05.2014, she came to her matrimonial house and stayed there only for a month and thereafter her husband has not come to take her back to her matrimonial house and she also admitted that she filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2019.
9. Since serious allegations have been leveled against the revisionist. A perusal of the reply filed by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court serious allegations of adultery has also been leveled against the revisionist. It was the duty of the trial court to decide this issue by means of the speaking and reasoned order and should have given some finding on it but the trial court in paragraph no.27 of the judgment mentioned that it is not necessary to give finding regarding living in adultery in respect of a married woman.
10. In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh.
11. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order 04.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli in Maintenance Case No. 173 of 2019 (Smt. Kiran Kumari Vs. Indrasani Singh Chauhan) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Alinagar, District- Chandauli is set aside. The mater is remitted back to the trial court to decide the same afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned to adduce their respective evidence specially on the issue of adultery and whether she is legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 or not, by a speaking and reasoned order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the trial court.
12. It is made clear that the trial court would be at liberty to decide the matter afresh by taking additional evidence, if required, without being influenced by any of the observations made herinabove.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 24, 2025
Prajapati RK
