State of U.P. and Another v. Party

report dated 9th October, 2025. Mr. Utkarsh Birla, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. are present.

2. While entertaining the present criminal revision a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22nd August, 2025 passed following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 250 of 2020 (Smt. Monika Gupta vs. Vibhor Maheshwari) by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party No. 2 was allowed and final maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month was awarded.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial Court, vide order dated 26.09.2024, allowed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, but failed to consider the plea raised by the revisionist that opposite party No. 2 (wife) had deserted him and has been living separately without sufficient cause. He further submits that the trial Court had awarded Rs.3,500/- as interim maintenance, vide order dated

09.02.2024, in the said maintenance case, against which Criminal Revision Defect No. 910 of 2024 was filed by the revisionist, wherein the following order was passed by this Court:- "5. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Family Court has committed error while passing the impugned order dated 09.02.2024, whereby the Court has disposed of all the applications which were pending 2 CRLR No. 6282 of 2024 without deliberating upon them. It is further submitted that the revisionist has filed an application as Paper 34A, under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. stating that the respondent-wife has deserted the revisionist-husband without any cause or sufficient reason, and the Family Court has passed the impugned order without deciding the aforesaid application, which is a pre-condition under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. before awarding the interim maintenance.

6. On perusal of impugned order dated 09.02.2024, it transpires that all applications are disposed of simplicitor without taking judicial note of the application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Judge, Hathras to pass a fresh order on the application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, thereafter shall decide the interim maintenance.

7. The instant revision is disposed of with the aforesaid direction."

4. However, the trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the plea of the revisionist regarding the provisions of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. A recovery warrant of Rs.2,25,000/- has been issued against the revisionist, therefore, some interim order may kindly be passed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that if any interim order is passed, some substantial amount may be directed to be paid by the revisionist to opposite party No. 2.

6. Matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice to opposite party No.2, returnable at an early date.

8. List on 10.10.2025 as fresh.

9. Till the next date of listing, enforcement of the recovery warrant shall remain stayed, provided the revisionist deposits Rs.75,000/- in the meanwhile before the trial Court, which shall be payable to opposite party No. 2 on her application. The said amount shall be paid to opposite party No. 2 through a Demand Draft. Apart from this, the revisionist shall pay and continue to pay Rs. 3,500/- as monthly maintenance to opposite party No. 2 on a regular basis from September 2025 onwards, failing which the interim order shall stand vacated automatically."

3. Today on the matter being taken up for deciding the present criminal revision finally, from the records of the present criminal revision as well as from the argument advanced on behalf of the revisionist, prima facie it is 3 CRLR No. 6282 of 2024 cropped up that on 21st July, 2020, opposite party no.2 filed the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist for monthly maintenance allowance wherein the revisionist filed his objection on 19th April,

2023. Whereafter, at the time of disposal of interim maintenance allowance application in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the revisionist filed an application under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. stating therein that since the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. the revisionist without any sufficient reasons, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance. However, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras vide order dated 9th February, 2024 allowing Paper No. 32A filed by opposite party no.2 and awarding interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. on technical ground. Against the order dated 9th February, 2024, the revisionist has approached this Court earlier by means of Criminal Revision Defective No. 910 of 2024 (Vibhor Maheshwari Vs. State of U.P. & Another) and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27th May, 2024 has set aside the order dated 9th February, 2024 and while remanding the matter back, directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras to decided the application of the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. afresh. The said order of Coordinate Bench has already been quoted in the interim order dated 22nd August, 2025 passed in the present criminal revision. This time again, the trial court has adopted hyper technical view while rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 21st June, 2024 on the ground that such application has not been supported by any affidavit and also on the ground that the trial court cannot ask the opposite party no.2 to go with the revisionist and live with him . Whereafter by passing the final judgment i.e. impugned judgment dated 29th August, 2024 in the instant proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the same Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in paragraph no. 16 while deciding issue no.3 has held that opposite party no.2 has a reasonable cause to live separately from her husband and accordingly, the Principal Judge has awarded maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.2.The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "In this case, wife/ Applicant has a reasonable cause to live separately from her husband, on the premise of harassment and demand of dowry. Opponent is reportedly B.S.c, B.Ed. & pursuing TET, he was in the job of Telemarketing. He might certainly be earning sufficiently, thereby he must be having sufficient means to maintain his wife. Applicant is, in state of neglect and she is not being properly maintained by the Opponent/ husband."

4. When as a matter of fact, just after about 28 days of the passing of the 4 CRLR No. 6282 of 2024 impugned judgment dated 29th August, 2024, while deciding marriage petition bearing Marriage Petition No. 310 of 2020 (CNR No. UPHT020007152020) (Vibhor Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Monika Gupta) filed by the revisionist under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, the same Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras has passed order dated 26th September, 2024 wherein he has opined that the opposite party no.2 is living separately without any reason. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: "In this case, in view of the discussion above-said after careful scrutiny & appreciation of pleadings, record & evidence, this Court is fully satisfied that Respondent has no reasonable & proper cause to reside separately from her husband and for withdrawal from the society of Petitioner. Meaning thereby, it is the respondent, who is not ready & willing to join the company of her husband without any reasonable cause, whereas, Petition is ready for it, as he has specifically taken the stand for it. Accordingly, both the issues stands answered."

5. It is very painful for this Court to record that a same Presiding Officer i.e. Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in two different proceedings i.e. one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and other under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act so instituted by both the parties against each other i.e. opposite party no.2 and the revisionist, has formed contradictory opinions on the basis of same evidence adduced before it in both the proceedings. In the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras has opined that opposite party no.2 has sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately from her husband, whereas in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, he has opined that opposite party no.2 has no reasonable and proper cause to reside separately from her husband i.e. revisionist.

6. Seeing such contradictory opinions of of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, this Court has no other option but to direct him to submit his explanation as to how he has formed two different opinions on the same issue i.e. separate living of opposite party no.2 on the basis of same evidence led before him in both the proceedings.

7. List this case on 6th November, 2025 as fresh.

8. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras henceforth in order to comply with this order.

9. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. October 10, 2025 Sushil/- 5 CRLR No. 6282 of 2024 (Madan Pal Singh,J.)

report dated 9th October, 2025. Mr. Utkarsh Birla, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. are present.

2. While entertaining the present criminal revision a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22nd August, 2025 passed following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 250 of 2020 (Smt. Monika Gupta vs. Vibhor Maheshwari) by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party No. 2 was allowed and final maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month was awarded.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial Court, vide order dated 26.09.2024, allowed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, but failed to consider the plea raised by the revisionist that opposite party No. 2 (wife) had deserted him and has been living separately without sufficient cause. He further submits that the trial Court had awarded Rs.3,500/- as interim maintenance, vide order dated

09.02.2024, in the said maintenance case, against which Criminal Revision Defect No. 910 of 2024 was filed by the revisionist, wherein the following order was passed by this Court:- "5. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Family Court has committed error while passing the impugned order dated 09.02.2024, whereby the Court has disposed of all the applications which were pending 2 CRLR No. 6282 of 2024 without deliberating upon them. It is further submitted that the revisionist has filed an application as Paper 34A, under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. stating that the respondent-wife has deserted the revisionist-husband without any cause or sufficient reason, and the Family Court has passed the impugned order without deciding the aforesaid application, which is a pre-condition under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. before awarding the interim maintenance.

6. On perusal of impugned order dated 09.02.2024, it transpires that all applications are disposed of simplicitor without taking judicial note of the application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Judge, Hathras to pass a fresh order on the application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, thereafter shall decide the interim maintenance.

7. The instant revision is disposed of with the aforesaid direction."

4. However, the trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the plea of the revisionist regarding the provisions of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. A recovery warrant of Rs.2,25,000/- has been issued against the revisionist, therefore, some interim order may kindly be passed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that if any interim order is passed, some substantial amount may be directed to be paid by the revisionist to opposite party No. 2.

6. Matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice to opposite party No.2, returnable at an early date.

8. List on 10.10.2025 as fresh.

9. Till the next date of listing, enforcement of the recovery warrant shall remain stayed, provided the revisionist deposits Rs.75,000/- in the meanwhile before the trial Court, which shall be payable to opposite party No. 2 on her application. The said amount shall be paid to opposite party No. 2 through a Demand Draft. Apart from this, the revisionist shall pay and continue to pay Rs. 3,500/- as monthly maintenance to opposite party No. 2 on a regular basis from September 2025 onwards, failing which the interim order shall stand vacated automatically."

3. Today on the matter being taken up for deciding the present criminal revision finally, from the records of the present criminal revision as well as from the argument advanced on behalf of the revisionist, prima facie it is 3 CRLR No. 6282 of 2024 cropped up that on 21st July, 2020, opposite party no.2 filed the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist for monthly maintenance allowance wherein the revisionist filed his objection on 19th April,

2023. Whereafter, at the time of disposal of interim maintenance allowance application in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the revisionist filed an application under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. stating therein that since the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. the revisionist without any sufficient reasons, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance. However, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras vide order dated 9th February, 2024 allowing Paper No. 32A filed by opposite party no.2 and awarding interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. on technical ground. Against the order dated 9th February, 2024, the revisionist has approached this Court earlier by means of Criminal Revision Defective No. 910 of 2024 (Vibhor Maheshwari Vs. State of U.P. & Another) and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27th May, 2024 has set aside the order dated 9th February, 2024 and while remanding the matter back, directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras to decided the application of the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. afresh. The said order of Coordinate Bench has already been quoted in the interim order dated 22nd August, 2025 passed in the present criminal revision. This time again, the trial court has adopted hyper technical view while rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 21st June, 2024 on the ground that such application has not been supported by any affidavit and also on the ground that the trial court cannot ask the opposite party no.2 to go with the revisionist and live with him . Whereafter by passing the final judgment i.e. impugned judgment dated 29th August, 2024 in the instant proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the same Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in paragraph no. 16 while deciding issue no.3 has held that opposite party no.2 has a reasonable cause to live separately from her husband and accordingly, the Principal Judge has awarded maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.2.The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "In this case, wife/ Applicant has a reasonable cause to live separately from her husband, on the premise of harassment and demand of dowry. Opponent is reportedly B.S.c, B.Ed. & pursuing TET, he was in the job of Telemarketing. He might certainly be earning sufficiently, thereby he must be having sufficient means to maintain his wife. Applicant is, in state of neglect and she is not being properly maintained by the Opponent/ husband."

4. When as a matter of fact, just after about 28 days of the passing of the 4 CRLR No. 6282 of 2024 impugned judgment dated 29th August, 2024, while deciding marriage petition bearing Marriage Petition No. 310 of 2020 (CNR No. UPHT020007152020) (Vibhor Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Monika Gupta) filed by the revisionist under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, the same Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras has passed order dated 26th September, 2024 wherein he has opined that the opposite party no.2 is living separately without any reason. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: "In this case, in view of the discussion above-said after careful scrutiny & appreciation of pleadings, record & evidence, this Court is fully satisfied that Respondent has no reasonable & proper cause to reside separately from her husband and for withdrawal from the society of Petitioner. Meaning thereby, it is the respondent, who is not ready & willing to join the company of her husband without any reasonable cause, whereas, Petition is ready for it, as he has specifically taken the stand for it. Accordingly, both the issues stands answered."

5. It is very painful for this Court to record that a same Presiding Officer i.e. Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in two different proceedings i.e. one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and other under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act so instituted by both the parties against each other i.e. opposite party no.2 and the revisionist, has formed contradictory opinions on the basis of same evidence adduced before it in both the proceedings. In the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras has opined that opposite party no.2 has sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately from her husband, whereas in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, he has opined that opposite party no.2 has no reasonable and proper cause to reside separately from her husband i.e. revisionist.

6. Seeing such contradictory opinions of of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, this Court has no other option but to direct him to submit his explanation as to how he has formed two different opinions on the same issue i.e. separate living of opposite party no.2 on the basis of same evidence led before him in both the proceedings.

7. List this case on 6th November, 2025 as fresh.

8. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras henceforth in order to comply with this order.

9. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. October 10, 2025 Sushil/- 5 CRLR No. 6282 of 2024 (Madan Pal Singh,J.)