Sandhya v. Pushpendra), under Section

1. Heard Mr. Vijeta Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Shyam Singh Somewanshi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to quash/set aside the judgment and order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2020 (Sandhya Vs. Pushpendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125Cr.P.C. for getting monthly maintenance allowance from opposite party no.2, while deciding issue no.2 with an observation that the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 at her parental house along with her daughter.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in arbitrary manner without considering the allegations made by her during the course of trial. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there is no dispute that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 21st February, 2019. He then submits that in the said marriage the parents of the revisionist gave sufficient dowry to opposite party no.2 as per their capacity. He next submits that for only one reason, the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 at her parental, the first is that since marriage, the 2 CRLR No. 3080 of 2024 opposite party no.2 and his mother being greedy started demanding additional dowry in the form of Rs. 50,000/- cash and a motor-cycle and for non- fulfillment of the same, they used to torture and harass her and she endured everything to save her married life in the hope that everything will be alright one day. Whereafter, since the revisionist is the only child of her parents, she has neither any brother nor any sister and the two bighas' of land of his father which is situated on the roadside will one day belong to the revisionist, hence the opposite party no.2 started forcing her to ask her father for getting the said land registered in his name. When the revisionist refused to asked her father for getting the said land transferred in his name, opposite party no.2 started beating her brutally and on 4th August, 2019 in connection with the same, when the revisionist became pregnant, she was ousted from her matrimonial house by opposite party no.2. To transfer the land to the opposite party no.2, he started beating the revisionist and one day when the the revisionist became pregnant, he ousted her from her matrimonial house. In that circumstances, the revisionist has no other option but to live at her parents' house where she gave birth to a girl who is 6 years old today.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that without examining the aforesaid cause deeply as alleged by the revisionist for her separate living, the trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the 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 and rejecting the claim of the revisionist, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 is always eager to bring his wife back to her matrimonial house along with his minor daughter but since the revisionist does not want to serve his mother, who is an old woman and has no one except him to take care of herself, the revisionist resists the opposite party no.2 that she will not come at her matrimonial house until opposite party no.2 separates from his mother.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submits that the trial court while deciding issue no.2 has recorded categorical finding that the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 without any reason. In connection with the same, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 3 CRLR No. 3080 of 2024 has invited the attention of the Court to page no.5 of the impugned judgment wherein the trial court has recorded that in the cross-examination, the revisionist has admitted that she is living at her parental house on her won free will. He lastly submits that the trial court has also find no substance in the allegation made by the revisionist qua harassment and cruelty on the part of the opposite party no.2 due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the revisionist is living separately without any sufficient cause.

8. On the premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since there is no illegality in the judgment impugned, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. 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, this Court finds that it is an admitted case that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2.

10. There is also nothing on record to establish that the revisionist has any source of income to maintain herself and the opposite party no.2 has also failed to prove that she earns some money to maintain herself.

11. So far as the finding recorded by the trial court under the impugned judgment regarding the separate living of the revisionist with her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 is concerned, this Court finds from the record including the impugned judgment that it was specifically mentioned in the impugned judgment that when the revisionist became pregnant, she has been ousted from her matrimonial house by opposite party no.2 due to which she is bound to live at her parental house where she delivered a baby child, who is now six years old. It also reflects from the impugned judgment that due to non- fulfillment of additional demand of dowry in the form of Rs. 50,000/- cash and a motorcycle she was subjected to torture and harassment on the part of opposite party no.2 and thereafter since the revisionist is only child of her parents and two bighas' land, which is on the road side, is recorded in the name of her father, the opposite party no.2 started beating the revisionist for getting the said lands transferred in his name. Such allegations made by the revisionist against her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 are so serious in nature which have been made by her in order to justify her stand of separate living. However, such allegations have not been examined by the trial court more deeply, while rejecting her claim under the impugned judgment.

12. This Court may also record that in Indian culture, no married woman wants to live separately from her husband and her in-laws without any valid reason 4 CRLR No. 3080 of 2024 along with her six years girl child. It is an admitted position from the impugned judgment that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 9th May, 2019 and when she became pregnant, she was ousted by opposite party no.2 on 4th August, 2019 i.e. just after nearly three month and she has been forced to live at her parental house where she delivered a girl child. This means that what happened to the revisionist in just a few months that it became difficult and unbearable for her to live with the opposite party no.2 at her matrimonial house and why she does not want to go with the opposite party no.2 to live at her matrimonial house. From the aforesaid it appears that she is living separate from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 due to negligent on his part.

13. 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 opposite party no.2 to maintain his wife i.e. the revisionist. The trial court should have considered the real intent of such legislation while scrutinizing the so serious allegations made by the revisionist against her husband to justify her stand of her separate living but the trial court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

14. Mere from perusal of one sentence of the revisionist which was given at the time of cross-examination during the course of trial that she is living at her parental house on her own free will, the trial court has misinterpreted itself to come to the conclusion that she deliberately does not want to live with her husband and that she has no sufficient grounds to live separate. To understand the specific view of any person, it is better to read the entire paragraph given by him/her together and not by one sentence which has been given as answer in cross-examination in reply to a specific question. It is common prudence that when a person asks a particular question to another person, that other person answers that particular question. If a woman/man is asked whether she/he is living in her/his parents' house because of some pressure her/his parents, definitely, she/he will say that she/he is living at her/his parental house on her/his free will.

15. The allegations made by the revisionist are so serious and in the opinion of the Court, the same might be a sufficient cause for her living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 at her parental house as she is forced to live there, which were required to be scrutinized deeply by the trial court. There was discord existed between the parties for some issues. The trial court has not understood the real intent of the legislation.

16. In view of the above deliberation and discussion, this Court finds that the 5 CRLR No. 3080 of 2024 trial court has not considered such facts as observed above and has passed the impugned judgment while rejecting the claim of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to legal and correct in the eyes of law.

17. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2020 (Sandhya Vs. Pushpendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is set aside.

18. In order to achieve the real intent of the legislation, the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2020 (Sandhya Vs. Pushpendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. specifically issue no.2 afresh in accordance with law and the observations made herein above, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within two 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.

19. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations made above.

20. There shall be no order as to costs. October 13, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Vijeta Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Shyam Singh Somewanshi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to quash/set aside the judgment and order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2020 (Sandhya Vs. Pushpendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125Cr.P.C. for getting monthly maintenance allowance from opposite party no.2, while deciding issue no.2 with an observation that the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 at her parental house along with her daughter.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in arbitrary manner without considering the allegations made by her during the course of trial. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there is no dispute that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 21st February, 2019. He then submits that in the said marriage the parents of the revisionist gave sufficient dowry to opposite party no.2 as per their capacity. He next submits that for only one reason, the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 at her parental, the first is that since marriage, the 2 CRLR No. 3080 of 2024 opposite party no.2 and his mother being greedy started demanding additional dowry in the form of Rs. 50,000/- cash and a motor-cycle and for non- fulfillment of the same, they used to torture and harass her and she endured everything to save her married life in the hope that everything will be alright one day. Whereafter, since the revisionist is the only child of her parents, she has neither any brother nor any sister and the two bighas' of land of his father which is situated on the roadside will one day belong to the revisionist, hence the opposite party no.2 started forcing her to ask her father for getting the said land registered in his name. When the revisionist refused to asked her father for getting the said land transferred in his name, opposite party no.2 started beating her brutally and on 4th August, 2019 in connection with the same, when the revisionist became pregnant, she was ousted from her matrimonial house by opposite party no.2. To transfer the land to the opposite party no.2, he started beating the revisionist and one day when the the revisionist became pregnant, he ousted her from her matrimonial house. In that circumstances, the revisionist has no other option but to live at her parents' house where she gave birth to a girl who is 6 years old today.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that without examining the aforesaid cause deeply as alleged by the revisionist for her separate living, the trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the 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 and rejecting the claim of the revisionist, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 is always eager to bring his wife back to her matrimonial house along with his minor daughter but since the revisionist does not want to serve his mother, who is an old woman and has no one except him to take care of herself, the revisionist resists the opposite party no.2 that she will not come at her matrimonial house until opposite party no.2 separates from his mother.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submits that the trial court while deciding issue no.2 has recorded categorical finding that the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 without any reason. In connection with the same, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 3 CRLR No. 3080 of 2024 has invited the attention of the Court to page no.5 of the impugned judgment wherein the trial court has recorded that in the cross-examination, the revisionist has admitted that she is living at her parental house on her won free will. He lastly submits that the trial court has also find no substance in the allegation made by the revisionist qua harassment and cruelty on the part of the opposite party no.2 due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the revisionist is living separately without any sufficient cause.

8. On the premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since there is no illegality in the judgment impugned, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. 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, this Court finds that it is an admitted case that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2.

10. There is also nothing on record to establish that the revisionist has any source of income to maintain herself and the opposite party no.2 has also failed to prove that she earns some money to maintain herself.

11. So far as the finding recorded by the trial court under the impugned judgment regarding the separate living of the revisionist with her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 is concerned, this Court finds from the record including the impugned judgment that it was specifically mentioned in the impugned judgment that when the revisionist became pregnant, she has been ousted from her matrimonial house by opposite party no.2 due to which she is bound to live at her parental house where she delivered a baby child, who is now six years old. It also reflects from the impugned judgment that due to non- fulfillment of additional demand of dowry in the form of Rs. 50,000/- cash and a motorcycle she was subjected to torture and harassment on the part of opposite party no.2 and thereafter since the revisionist is only child of her parents and two bighas' land, which is on the road side, is recorded in the name of her father, the opposite party no.2 started beating the revisionist for getting the said lands transferred in his name. Such allegations made by the revisionist against her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 are so serious in nature which have been made by her in order to justify her stand of separate living. However, such allegations have not been examined by the trial court more deeply, while rejecting her claim under the impugned judgment.

12. This Court may also record that in Indian culture, no married woman wants to live separately from her husband and her in-laws without any valid reason 4 CRLR No. 3080 of 2024 along with her six years girl child. It is an admitted position from the impugned judgment that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 9th May, 2019 and when she became pregnant, she was ousted by opposite party no.2 on 4th August, 2019 i.e. just after nearly three month and she has been forced to live at her parental house where she delivered a girl child. This means that what happened to the revisionist in just a few months that it became difficult and unbearable for her to live with the opposite party no.2 at her matrimonial house and why she does not want to go with the opposite party no.2 to live at her matrimonial house. From the aforesaid it appears that she is living separate from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 due to negligent on his part.

13. 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 opposite party no.2 to maintain his wife i.e. the revisionist. The trial court should have considered the real intent of such legislation while scrutinizing the so serious allegations made by the revisionist against her husband to justify her stand of her separate living but the trial court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

14. Mere from perusal of one sentence of the revisionist which was given at the time of cross-examination during the course of trial that she is living at her parental house on her own free will, the trial court has misinterpreted itself to come to the conclusion that she deliberately does not want to live with her husband and that she has no sufficient grounds to live separate. To understand the specific view of any person, it is better to read the entire paragraph given by him/her together and not by one sentence which has been given as answer in cross-examination in reply to a specific question. It is common prudence that when a person asks a particular question to another person, that other person answers that particular question. If a woman/man is asked whether she/he is living in her/his parents' house because of some pressure her/his parents, definitely, she/he will say that she/he is living at her/his parental house on her/his free will.

15. The allegations made by the revisionist are so serious and in the opinion of the Court, the same might be a sufficient cause for her living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 at her parental house as she is forced to live there, which were required to be scrutinized deeply by the trial court. There was discord existed between the parties for some issues. The trial court has not understood the real intent of the legislation.

16. In view of the above deliberation and discussion, this Court finds that the 5 CRLR No. 3080 of 2024 trial court has not considered such facts as observed above and has passed the impugned judgment while rejecting the claim of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to legal and correct in the eyes of law.

17. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2020 (Sandhya Vs. Pushpendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is set aside.

18. In order to achieve the real intent of the legislation, the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2020 (Sandhya Vs. Pushpendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. specifically issue no.2 afresh in accordance with law and the observations made herein above, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within two 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.

19. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations made above.

20. There shall be no order as to costs. October 13, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad