State of U.P. and Another v. Party

Firdos Ahmad, Mahesh Kumar : : G.A., Narendra Kumar Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 515 of 2020 (Registration No. 581 of 2020) (Smt. Neeraj Shakya Vs. Rakesh Kumar Shkya) 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 in adultery.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist was being tortured by her husband and his family members. The revisionist was also compelled by opposite party no.2 to make illicit relation with his other friends and was also tortured for establishing unnatural sex. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 has tortured the revisionist on account of additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Since the said fact has specifically been stated by the revisionist before the trial court but the trial court has not taken into consideration while deciding the Issue No. 2 and rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she was living in adultery. It is next submitted that the order of the trial court is against facts and law, as there was no sufficient proof of the adultery against the revisionist as alleged by the opposite party no.2 even then, the trial court has rejected the application in arbitrary manner.

4. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the 2 CRLR No. 2482 of 2024 learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment while rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. They further submit that the trial court after appreciating the evidence adduced before it, has passed the impugned judgment. As such, no interference is warranted against the impugned judgment by this Court.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, it reflects from the record that the opposite party no.2 filed reply before the trial court in which allegations were levelled against revisionist that she was in relations with other person even prior to her marriage and after marriage, she is living adultery with Krishna Kumar Maurya. In paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment, the trial court, while deciding the issue no.2 has recorded specific finding regarding the allegation made by the rival parties against each other. The trial court found that allegation regarding living in adultery with Krishna Kumar Maurya was found proven against the revisionist. In the judgment, it has been mentioned that the opposite party no.2 through a list of 34-B, three photographs were produced before the trial court, in which revisionist was found in obscene condition with some another person but on the same, no rebuttal has been made by the revisionist. The trial court further recorded that the opposite party no.2 had produced a pen drive, which was considered by the trial court. The said pen drive contained an audio conversation indicated of the illicit relationship of the revisionist with another person. The revisionist neither challenged the authenticity of the pen drive nor filed any application to test its veracity.

6. It is undoubted true that the evidence regarding adultery is seldom available and direct evidence in most of the cases could not be available by the parties but in the present case, opposite party no.2 has produced the photographs of the revisionist with some other person in obscene condition. It is inferred that she was actually living in adultery with some another person and the finding of the trial court cannot be said to be perverse and against the facts and law. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. 3 CRLR No. 2482 of 2024 Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. The finding recorded by the trial court while deciding the Issue No. 2 is seems to be satisfactory and after considering all aspect of the matter.

7. As per Section 125 (4) Cr. P.C. no wife shall be entitled to receive any allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband, under this section, 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

8. Since the trial court has recorded a clear cut finding that the revisionist is living in adultery, therefore she is not entitled to to get any maintenance within the meaning of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The trial court has, therefore, rightly rejected the application.

9. In view of the deliberations and discussions made herein-above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, which may warrant any interference by this Court.

10. The this criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 9, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firdos Ahmad, Mahesh Kumar : : G.A., Narendra Kumar Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 515 of 2020 (Registration No. 581 of 2020) (Smt. Neeraj Shakya Vs. Rakesh Kumar Shkya) 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 in adultery.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist was being tortured by her husband and his family members. The revisionist was also compelled by opposite party no.2 to make illicit relation with his other friends and was also tortured for establishing unnatural sex. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 has tortured the revisionist on account of additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Since the said fact has specifically been stated by the revisionist before the trial court but the trial court has not taken into consideration while deciding the Issue No. 2 and rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she was living in adultery. It is next submitted that the order of the trial court is against facts and law, as there was no sufficient proof of the adultery against the revisionist as alleged by the opposite party no.2 even then, the trial court has rejected the application in arbitrary manner.

4. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the 2 CRLR No. 2482 of 2024 learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment while rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. They further submit that the trial court after appreciating the evidence adduced before it, has passed the impugned judgment. As such, no interference is warranted against the impugned judgment by this Court.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, it reflects from the record that the opposite party no.2 filed reply before the trial court in which allegations were levelled against revisionist that she was in relations with other person even prior to her marriage and after marriage, she is living adultery with Krishna Kumar Maurya. In paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment, the trial court, while deciding the issue no.2 has recorded specific finding regarding the allegation made by the rival parties against each other. The trial court found that allegation regarding living in adultery with Krishna Kumar Maurya was found proven against the revisionist. In the judgment, it has been mentioned that the opposite party no.2 through a list of 34-B, three photographs were produced before the trial court, in which revisionist was found in obscene condition with some another person but on the same, no rebuttal has been made by the revisionist. The trial court further recorded that the opposite party no.2 had produced a pen drive, which was considered by the trial court. The said pen drive contained an audio conversation indicated of the illicit relationship of the revisionist with another person. The revisionist neither challenged the authenticity of the pen drive nor filed any application to test its veracity.

6. It is undoubted true that the evidence regarding adultery is seldom available and direct evidence in most of the cases could not be available by the parties but in the present case, opposite party no.2 has produced the photographs of the revisionist with some other person in obscene condition. It is inferred that she was actually living in adultery with some another person and the finding of the trial court cannot be said to be perverse and against the facts and law. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. 3 CRLR No. 2482 of 2024 Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. The finding recorded by the trial court while deciding the Issue No. 2 is seems to be satisfactory and after considering all aspect of the matter.

7. As per Section 125 (4) Cr. P.C. no wife shall be entitled to receive any allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband, under this section, 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

8. Since the trial court has recorded a clear cut finding that the revisionist is living in adultery, therefore she is not entitled to to get any maintenance within the meaning of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The trial court has, therefore, rightly rejected the application.

9. In view of the deliberations and discussions made herein-above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, which may warrant any interference by this Court.

10. The this criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 9, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad