Saba Yaseen and Another v. Mohd. Sharif), under Section

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Prateek Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10th April, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 1090 of 2019 (Saba Yaseen and Another vs. Mohd. Sharif), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Azamgarh whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist no.1, has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to revisionist no.2 (till she attain the age of majority) from the date of filing of application.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by wife (revisionist no.1 herein), and daughter (revisionist no.2 herein) of the opposite party no.2 for monthly maintenance allowance. However, while partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the trial court under vide impugned judgment has rejected the claim of revisionist no.1 and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 4000/- per moth to revisionist no.2 as monthly maintenance allowance.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that since marriage, opposite party no.2, being a peevish and cantankerous nature, used to misbehave with the revisionist and always ready to fight with her. It is then submitted that it transpires from the order that the revisionist no. 1 was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry i.e. Rs. two lacs and on 03.09.2019, she was brutally beaten and thrown out along with her minor daughter from her matrimonial house and now she is living 2 CRLR No. 2653 of 2024 separately from his husband. It is further submitted that revisionist no. 1 is unemployed and having no source of income, thus, she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. Since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that a case U/s 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act was lodged on 25.11.2019 by the revisionist no.1. The trial court while passing the impugned judgment and rejecting the claim of the revisionist no.1 has recorded categorical finding of fact that no medico legal evidence regarding the cruelty has been adduced by the revisionist no.1 during the course of trial. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and argument advanced by both the parties, perusal of records including the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2024, it transpires that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.1 and it is legal and pious duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children.

7. A perusal of judgment, it reflects that revisionist has stated in his examination-in-chief that she was tortured by her in-laws regarding additional demand of dowry and in connection with the same, on 03.09.2019 her in-laws committed maar-peet upon her thereafter, they thrown her out from her matrimonial house threatening that unless or until she does not fetch Rs.2 lacs and one motorcycle as additional dowry, they will not allow her to enter into her matrimonial home. After the incident, she dialed 112 to call the police, who have also came on the spot but no action has been taken against the opposite party no.2 and his family members. Further a perusal of the judgment, it reflects from page-5 of the impugned judgment where the trial court has recorded the statement of P.W.-5 in which she stated that she is contesting this case in order to obtain maintenance only and she also wants to live with her husband. On the basis of such statement, trial court has come to a conclusion that she came before the trial court only to grab the money from her husband, her intention does not appear to live with the husband i.e. opposite party no.2. Such reason assigned by the trial court under the impugned judgment, which is based on surmises and conjectures, is contrary and perverse and against the facts of law. The trial court did not consider the averments and the evidence adduced by the revisionist during the course of trial, in correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that she is living 3 CRLR No. 2653 of 2024 without any reason from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2.

8. This Court has no hesitation to record that in Indian culture, no woman like the revisionist no.1 who is having a minor daughter and also having no source of income, would try deliberately to disturb her matrimonial life, merely on fake and fabricated grounds until her circumstances turned into unbearable. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial to the woman, hence it was enacted for the protection of every women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. Therefore, it is legal and pious duty of the husband like opposite party no.2 to maintain his wife and children i.e. revisionist nos. 1 and 2 herein.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.

10. In view of the aforesaid deliberation and discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court rejecting the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. qua revisionist no.1, is not in correct perspective. The trial court should have decided the same on merits. As such, the impugned judgment 01.04.2024 is liable to be set aisde.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the trial court rejecting the claim of the revisionist no.1 in the proceedings U/s 125 Cr.P.C. is set aside, but the said impugned judgment allowing the claim of revisionist no.2 for monthly maintenance allowance is affirmed.

12. The instant matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the claim of the revisionist no.1 under the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh. It is therefore, provided that the Princpal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh shall consider and decide the instant application afresh qua the claim of revisionist no.1, in accordance with law and the observations made above, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

13. With the observation made above, the present criminal revision is partly allowed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs. September 22, 2025 C. MANI 4 CRLR No. 2653 of 2024 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Prateek Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10th April, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 1090 of 2019 (Saba Yaseen and Another vs. Mohd. Sharif), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Azamgarh whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist no.1, has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to revisionist no.2 (till she attain the age of majority) from the date of filing of application.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by wife (revisionist no.1 herein), and daughter (revisionist no.2 herein) of the opposite party no.2 for monthly maintenance allowance. However, while partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the trial court under vide impugned judgment has rejected the claim of revisionist no.1 and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 4000/- per moth to revisionist no.2 as monthly maintenance allowance.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that since marriage, opposite party no.2, being a peevish and cantankerous nature, used to misbehave with the revisionist and always ready to fight with her. It is then submitted that it transpires from the order that the revisionist no. 1 was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry i.e. Rs. two lacs and on 03.09.2019, she was brutally beaten and thrown out along with her minor daughter from her matrimonial house and now she is living 2 CRLR No. 2653 of 2024 separately from his husband. It is further submitted that revisionist no. 1 is unemployed and having no source of income, thus, she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. Since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that a case U/s 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act was lodged on 25.11.2019 by the revisionist no.1. The trial court while passing the impugned judgment and rejecting the claim of the revisionist no.1 has recorded categorical finding of fact that no medico legal evidence regarding the cruelty has been adduced by the revisionist no.1 during the course of trial. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and argument advanced by both the parties, perusal of records including the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2024, it transpires that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.1 and it is legal and pious duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children.

7. A perusal of judgment, it reflects that revisionist has stated in his examination-in-chief that she was tortured by her in-laws regarding additional demand of dowry and in connection with the same, on 03.09.2019 her in-laws committed maar-peet upon her thereafter, they thrown her out from her matrimonial house threatening that unless or until she does not fetch Rs.2 lacs and one motorcycle as additional dowry, they will not allow her to enter into her matrimonial home. After the incident, she dialed 112 to call the police, who have also came on the spot but no action has been taken against the opposite party no.2 and his family members. Further a perusal of the judgment, it reflects from page-5 of the impugned judgment where the trial court has recorded the statement of P.W.-5 in which she stated that she is contesting this case in order to obtain maintenance only and she also wants to live with her husband. On the basis of such statement, trial court has come to a conclusion that she came before the trial court only to grab the money from her husband, her intention does not appear to live with the husband i.e. opposite party no.2. Such reason assigned by the trial court under the impugned judgment, which is based on surmises and conjectures, is contrary and perverse and against the facts of law. The trial court did not consider the averments and the evidence adduced by the revisionist during the course of trial, in correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that she is living 3 CRLR No. 2653 of 2024 without any reason from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2.

8. This Court has no hesitation to record that in Indian culture, no woman like the revisionist no.1 who is having a minor daughter and also having no source of income, would try deliberately to disturb her matrimonial life, merely on fake and fabricated grounds until her circumstances turned into unbearable. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial to the woman, hence it was enacted for the protection of every women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. Therefore, it is legal and pious duty of the husband like opposite party no.2 to maintain his wife and children i.e. revisionist nos. 1 and 2 herein.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.

10. In view of the aforesaid deliberation and discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court rejecting the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. qua revisionist no.1, is not in correct perspective. The trial court should have decided the same on merits. As such, the impugned judgment 01.04.2024 is liable to be set aisde.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the trial court rejecting the claim of the revisionist no.1 in the proceedings U/s 125 Cr.P.C. is set aside, but the said impugned judgment allowing the claim of revisionist no.2 for monthly maintenance allowance is affirmed.

12. The instant matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the claim of the revisionist no.1 under the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh. It is therefore, provided that the Princpal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh shall consider and decide the instant application afresh qua the claim of revisionist no.1, in accordance with law and the observations made above, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

13. With the observation made above, the present criminal revision is partly allowed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs. September 22, 2025 C. MANI 4 CRLR No. 2653 of 2024 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad