High Court

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 500 of 2016 (Smt. Gargee Singh Vs. Markandey Singh), under section 125 Cr.P.C. at P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh and with the further prayer that to direct the court below to allow the maintenance from the date of application and also enhance the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below as Rs. 2000/- for revisionist in pursuance of the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by Additional Principal Judge/Additional District Judge/Fast Tract Court No. 02, Azamgarh. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2, who neglected her to maintain, as a result, she is living with her father. Thereafter, she filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for maintenance but it was rejected by the learned court on the ground that the revisionist is living separate from her husband without any reasonable excuse with mutual consent. He further submitted that the revisionist is living with her father and is totally dependent on him. She is not able to maintain herself and there is no any decree of divorce between her and opposite party no. 2. The learned trial court has recorded the finding that the revisionist is living separate from the husband with mutual consent which has been written on a notarial affidavit, though, she has denied about the contents on the notarial affidavit and stated that her and her mother's signature was got done on plain paper, therefore, on the basis of agreement entered into through notarial affidavit cannot be said as proof of the fact that she agreed to live separate from the husband with mutual consent. He further submits that there is allegation that the revisionist went away with Rajeev Yadav regarding which her husband lodged an NCR No. 75/2016 on 02.06.2016 and also missing report dated 28.01.2016 but she never lived with him but this NCR and missing report was lodged by the husband with ill motive. The learned trial court has based its finding on the aforesaid facts and rejected the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. illegally, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended that the revisionist is wife of the opposite party no. 2 but section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C. disqualify the wife for maintenance allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery or if without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Since the revisionist is living separate from her husband, the opposite party no.2 with mutual consent as is evident from the notarial affidavit present on record and admitted by the revisionist herself. In this way, the revisionist cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from her husband, the opposite party no. 2 and the learned trial court has passed the order dated 24.01.2024 in accordance with law. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order but this revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. On considering the submission made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by learned trial court dated 24.01.2024, it appears that the revisionist is wife of opposite party no. 2 and from their wedlock, two children, Nancy and Rishabh were born. Both the children are living with opposite party no. 2 and the revisionist is living with her father as stated by her. The record shows that the revisionist went with Rajeev Yadav from the house of opposite party no. 2 regarding which he lodged an NCR No. 75/2016 at Police Station- Sidhari, District Azamgarh and again she went away from home regarding which he lodged the missing report on 28.01.2016. Thereafter, mutual agreement was entered into between the parties in the presence of Gram Pradhan and was testified before the notary which bears the signatures of the revisionist, opposite party no. 2 and mother of the revisionist, Sarita. The contents of the affidavit show that both the parties ended their marital relation willingly without any pressure leaving the children in custody of husband giving liberty to the revisionist to visit the children whenever she desires. Both of them are free to live their life independently. No one will make interference in the life of each other. During the course of trial before the learned court the revisionist has admitted about this agreement that was paper no. 15 Kha on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. She also admitted the photographs and the signatures of her and her mother, Sarita though, she denied about the contents of the notarial affidavit. The NCR No. 75/2016 Paper No. 14Kha dated 02.06.2016 also shows that the revisionist went away with Rajeev Yadav likewise missing report dated 28.01.2016 also shows that the revisionist went away from the house of her husband without any reason. All these facts as aforesaid show that the revisionist is living separately from her husband without any reasonable excuse and with mutual consent. In this way, the wife cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from husband in view of the provisions as contained u/s 125(4) Cr.P.C. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 24.01.2024 but this revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Nisha

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 500 of 2016 (Smt. Gargee Singh Vs. Markandey Singh), under section 125 Cr.P.C. at P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh and with the further prayer that to direct the court below to allow the maintenance from the date of application and also enhance the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below as Rs. 2000/- for revisionist in pursuance of the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by Additional Principal Judge/Additional District Judge/Fast Tract Court No. 02, Azamgarh. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2, who neglected her to maintain, as a result, she is living with her father. Thereafter, she filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for maintenance but it was rejected by the learned court on the ground that the revisionist is living separate from her husband without any reasonable excuse with mutual consent. He further submitted that the revisionist is living with her father and is totally dependent on him. She is not able to maintain herself and there is no any decree of divorce between her and opposite party no. 2. The learned trial court has recorded the finding that the revisionist is living separate from the husband with mutual consent which has been written on a notarial affidavit, though, she has denied about the contents on the notarial affidavit and stated that her and her mother's signature was got done on plain paper, therefore, on the basis of agreement entered into through notarial affidavit cannot be said as proof of the fact that she agreed to live separate from the husband with mutual consent. He further submits that there is allegation that the revisionist went away with Rajeev Yadav regarding which her husband lodged an NCR No. 75/2016 on 02.06.2016 and also missing report dated 28.01.2016 but she never lived with him but this NCR and missing report was lodged by the husband with ill motive. The learned trial court has based its finding on the aforesaid facts and rejected the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. illegally, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended that the revisionist is wife of the opposite party no. 2 but section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C. disqualify the wife for maintenance allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery or if without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Since the revisionist is living separate from her husband, the opposite party no.2 with mutual consent as is evident from the notarial affidavit present on record and admitted by the revisionist herself. In this way, the revisionist cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from her husband, the opposite party no. 2 and the learned trial court has passed the order dated 24.01.2024 in accordance with law. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order but this revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. On considering the submission made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by learned trial court dated 24.01.2024, it appears that the revisionist is wife of opposite party no. 2 and from their wedlock, two children, Nancy and Rishabh were born. Both the children are living with opposite party no. 2 and the revisionist is living with her father as stated by her. The record shows that the revisionist went with Rajeev Yadav from the house of opposite party no. 2 regarding which he lodged an NCR No. 75/2016 at Police Station- Sidhari, District Azamgarh and again she went away from home regarding which he lodged the missing report on 28.01.2016. Thereafter, mutual agreement was entered into between the parties in the presence of Gram Pradhan and was testified before the notary which bears the signatures of the revisionist, opposite party no. 2 and mother of the revisionist, Sarita. The contents of the affidavit show that both the parties ended their marital relation willingly without any pressure leaving the children in custody of husband giving liberty to the revisionist to visit the children whenever she desires. Both of them are free to live their life independently. No one will make interference in the life of each other. During the course of trial before the learned court the revisionist has admitted about this agreement that was paper no. 15 Kha on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. She also admitted the photographs and the signatures of her and her mother, Sarita though, she denied about the contents of the notarial affidavit. The NCR No. 75/2016 Paper No. 14Kha dated 02.06.2016 also shows that the revisionist went away with Rajeev Yadav likewise missing report dated 28.01.2016 also shows that the revisionist went away from the house of her husband without any reason. All these facts as aforesaid show that the revisionist is living separately from her husband without any reasonable excuse and with mutual consent. In this way, the wife cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance from husband in view of the provisions as contained u/s 125(4) Cr.P.C. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 24.01.2024 but this revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Nisha