State of U.P. and Another v. Party

2. Since the issues and law involved in both the criminal revisions are similar and also the impugned judgment challenged in both the criminal revisions is same, both the criminal revisions have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment. Criminal Revision No. 4869 of 2024 is being treated to be the leading case.

3. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal 2 CRLR No. 4869 of 2024 Judge, Family Court, Court no. 2, in Criminal Case No. 678 of 2018 (Smt. Seem Vs. Abhinav Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of application.

5. The sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party no. 2 is living separately without any sufficient reason and the trial court while deciding the Issue No. 4, has not recorded any reason qua the same, when as matter of fact the same was mandatory for the trial court to decide the said issue by cogent reason. It is then submitted that as per the provisions of 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.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA have opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the trial court has recorded the reason while deciding the issue no.2 with regard to the separate living of opposite party no.2 while deciding the Issue No. 4 and recorded that after divorce she is living at her parental home on account of fact that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on the part of the revisionist/husband and her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- and one four wheeler car and resultantly thrown her out from her matrimonial home. Since then, she is living at her parental home i.e. 22.6.2018. It is further submitted that there was sufficient reason for opposite party no.2 to live separately from her husband. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has fairly conceded that a very casual instead of categorical finding has been recorded by the trial court while deciding the Issue No. 4.

7. On Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and after perusal of record including the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, it reflects from the impugned judgment that the trial court has framed five issues and Issue No. 4 has been framed with regard to the fact as to whether the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist with sufficient cause or not. However, the trial court while deciding such issue has recorded its finding in only three lines in paragraph 3 CRLR No. 4869 of 2024 no. 28 of the impugned judgment.

8. For ready reference, the same is quoted here-under: "28- यािचनी के िव्षान अिधव्वा ने तकर् िकये हैं िक यािचनी तलाक के बाद अपने िपता के घर में रह रही है। तदनुसार यह िबन्दु यािचनी के प्ष में िनस्तािरत िकया जाता है।"

9. From the perusal of the finding/reason recorded by the trial court as aforesaid, this Court is surprise record that a very cursory reasoning/finding has been recorded by the trial court under the impugned judgment given regarding separate living of the opposite party no. 2 while deciding Issue No.4.

10. From the aforesaid, this Court is unable to understand as to what did the trial court want to state/record and what was its opinion. It is mandatory upon the trial court to decide each and every issue with specific finding and reason, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. For the issue whether the opposite party no. 2 is living separately from her husband without sufficient reasons or not, no specific findings have been recorded by the trial court. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that in absence of such finding, the impugned order/judgment cannot be legally sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

11. Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. specifically enacted for the purpose to determine that whether the opposite party no.2/wife is entitled to get maintenance or not. If any allegation has been made by her husband with regard to her separate living without any sufficient reason or living in adultery or living with mutual consent, in such conditions, the same should have been scrutinized deeply and thereafter decided the issue whether the wife is entitled to get any maintenance allowance or not?. Thus, it is obligatory for the trial court to record finding in all three components as alleged from the husband's side.

12. Consequently, this Court holds that since no specific finding has been recorded regarding separate living of the wife by the trial court on this very short point, the order passed by the trial court being illegal and incorrect, deserves to be set aside.

13. Accordingly, order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no. 2, in Criminal Case No. 678 of 2018 (Smt. Seem Vs. Abhinav Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.is set aside 4 CRLR No. 4869 of 2024 and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the Issue No. 4 afresh, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order after affording giving notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and also to adduce their evidences and set up their case, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

14. The present criminal revision is allowed subject observations/directions made above.

15. Since the order passed by the trial court challenged in both the criminal revisionist has already been set aside, the criminal revision no. 1344 of 2024 filed by Smt. Seema for enhancement of maintenance amount has become infructuous.

16. The same is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. October 6, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Since the issues and law involved in both the criminal revisions are similar and also the impugned judgment challenged in both the criminal revisions is same, both the criminal revisions have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment. Criminal Revision No. 4869 of 2024 is being treated to be the leading case.

3. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal 2 CRLR No. 4869 of 2024 Judge, Family Court, Court no. 2, in Criminal Case No. 678 of 2018 (Smt. Seem Vs. Abhinav Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of application.

5. The sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party no. 2 is living separately without any sufficient reason and the trial court while deciding the Issue No. 4, has not recorded any reason qua the same, when as matter of fact the same was mandatory for the trial court to decide the said issue by cogent reason. It is then submitted that as per the provisions of 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.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA have opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the trial court has recorded the reason while deciding the issue no.2 with regard to the separate living of opposite party no.2 while deciding the Issue No. 4 and recorded that after divorce she is living at her parental home on account of fact that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on the part of the revisionist/husband and her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- and one four wheeler car and resultantly thrown her out from her matrimonial home. Since then, she is living at her parental home i.e. 22.6.2018. It is further submitted that there was sufficient reason for opposite party no.2 to live separately from her husband. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has fairly conceded that a very casual instead of categorical finding has been recorded by the trial court while deciding the Issue No. 4.

7. On Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and after perusal of record including the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, it reflects from the impugned judgment that the trial court has framed five issues and Issue No. 4 has been framed with regard to the fact as to whether the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist with sufficient cause or not. However, the trial court while deciding such issue has recorded its finding in only three lines in paragraph 3 CRLR No. 4869 of 2024 no. 28 of the impugned judgment.

8. For ready reference, the same is quoted here-under: "28- यािचनी के िव्षान अिधव्वा ने तकर् िकये हैं िक यािचनी तलाक के बाद अपने िपता के घर में रह रही है। तदनुसार यह िबन्दु यािचनी के प्ष में िनस्तािरत िकया जाता है।"

9. From the perusal of the finding/reason recorded by the trial court as aforesaid, this Court is surprise record that a very cursory reasoning/finding has been recorded by the trial court under the impugned judgment given regarding separate living of the opposite party no. 2 while deciding Issue No.4.

10. From the aforesaid, this Court is unable to understand as to what did the trial court want to state/record and what was its opinion. It is mandatory upon the trial court to decide each and every issue with specific finding and reason, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. For the issue whether the opposite party no. 2 is living separately from her husband without sufficient reasons or not, no specific findings have been recorded by the trial court. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that in absence of such finding, the impugned order/judgment cannot be legally sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

11. Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. specifically enacted for the purpose to determine that whether the opposite party no.2/wife is entitled to get maintenance or not. If any allegation has been made by her husband with regard to her separate living without any sufficient reason or living in adultery or living with mutual consent, in such conditions, the same should have been scrutinized deeply and thereafter decided the issue whether the wife is entitled to get any maintenance allowance or not?. Thus, it is obligatory for the trial court to record finding in all three components as alleged from the husband's side.

12. Consequently, this Court holds that since no specific finding has been recorded regarding separate living of the wife by the trial court on this very short point, the order passed by the trial court being illegal and incorrect, deserves to be set aside.

13. Accordingly, order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no. 2, in Criminal Case No. 678 of 2018 (Smt. Seem Vs. Abhinav Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.is set aside 4 CRLR No. 4869 of 2024 and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the Issue No. 4 afresh, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order after affording giving notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and also to adduce their evidences and set up their case, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

14. The present criminal revision is allowed subject observations/directions made above.

15. Since the order passed by the trial court challenged in both the criminal revisionist has already been set aside, the criminal revision no. 1344 of 2024 filed by Smt. Seema for enhancement of maintenance amount has become infructuous.

16. The same is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. October 6, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad