Revisionist(s) v. State of U.P. Another

evidence adduced by the revisionist before the trial court, has passed the impugned order while relying upon the averments of the opposite party no.2. (iii) Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 was married to the elder cousin brother of the revisionist, namely, Virendra Singh in the year 1997, who unfortunately died in the year 2009, leaving behind opposite party no.2 and her two minor children. Thereafter, father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 took responsibility of her maintenance and her two children and he had also transferred one house in her favour. After sad demise of her husband, opposite party no. 2 has also received cash, movable and immovable properties from her mother and several relatives. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 went to Delhi along with her children to stay there. Since opposite party no.2 was not satisfied with the aforesaid financial assistance and to break the matrimonial life of revisionist and also to grab his property, she filed the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the basis of some forged and fabricated documents, which were prepared by her with the help of certain local leaders of rulling party. (iv) The revisionist never resided in Delhi with opposite party no.2 and his marriage was never solemnized with the opposite party no.2 and there was no conjugal relation with the opposite party no.2, as such, the question of birth of any child from their wedlock does not arise. 2 of 12 (v) The marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi, which has been relied upon and produced by the opposite party no.2 during the course of trial, is a forged document and in that regard the revisionist has made a complaint qua the said forgery against opposite party no.2 before the competent authority. The photographs produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court for certifying her marriage with revisionist, are morphed by using Artificial Intelligence, which were based on software. In the said photographs, the picture of the revisionist was altered with the photographs of her late husband, namely, Virendra Singh with whom her marriage was solemnized in the year 1997. (vi) The father-in-law of the opposite party no.2, who is also uncle of the revisionist, submitted an affidavit before the In-charge Station House Officer, Police Station-Kolhul, District Maharajganj that the opposite party no.2 is his widowed daughter-in-law and has been living with him and that the opposite party no. 2 has not married again after the death of his on Virendra Singh. Opposite party no.2 is blatantly lying and is still using her late husband’s name with her, as is evident from the sale-deed dated 18th May, 2022 and will deed dated 19th May, 2022. (vii). The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and in order to establish the marriage, cohabitation must be established by evidence but in the present case, no evidence qua the cohabitation has been brought on record. Also, in the present case, the basic ingredients to prove a valid marriage were lacking and no evidence was brought on record by opposite party no.2 in that regard. (viii) The opposite party no. 2 could not demonstrate before the trail court as to why she has left the house of the revisionist and therefore, her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 3 of 12 (ix) The revisionist has sufficient income to maintain herself. After sad demise of her husband, her father-in-law transferred a house in her name, she has also received cash, movable and immovable properties from her relatives and her mother. (x) Lastly, the revisionist is living in penury and he is working as a mobile repair mechanic, therefore, the amount awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance is too exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is illegal, contrary to material available on record and has been passed without application of mind, exceeding the jurisdiction vested in the Principal Judge of Family Court, as such, the same is liable to be quashed while allowing the present criminal revision.

4. 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 there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court while awarding Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

5. Apart from the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 13th March, 2010 and after Vidai, she went to the opposite party's home to perform her duties of a wife. Prior to the said marriage, the Hindu marriage of opposite party no.2 took place with the cousin brother of the revisionist, namely, Virendra Singh in the year 4 of 12

1997. However, during a robbery occurred at his home, Virendra Singh was murdered by robbers. Subsequently, with the consent of all family members, the revisionist and opposite party no.2 entered into a Hindu marriage. The opposite party no.2 has a son and daughter from her previous marriage, who were 9 and 17 years old on the date of filing of the instant application. The the revisionist used to do business in Delhi but returned, leaving the opposite party no.2 at her parents' home and stopped to give her maintenance because he was determined to marry again with some one else, due to which the opposite party no.2 filed a suit being Suit No. 106/2016 (Sarika Singh vs Vipin Singh) for conjugal rights in the trial court, and when the said matter was pending, the revisionist solemnized his second marriage with one Nandani Singh, daughter of Sitaram Singh. The opposite party no.2 has no source of income and is unable to support herself and her children. The revisionist has a huge business of computers and cafes in Kolhul and he is also doing business of gravel, sand, cement and rods, he has house and 08 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns Rs. 80,000/- per month. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the trial court has recorded categorical finding of facts and committed no error in passing the impugned judgment, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

7. For deciding the present criminal revision, it is necessary for this Court to refer to the issues so framed by the trial court for passing the impugned judgment, while deciding the instant application under Section 125. The issues are (i) whether the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist or not?, (ii) whether the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist with sufficient 5 of 12 cause or reason or not?, (iii) whether the opposite party no.2 is unable to maintain herself or not?, (iv) whether the revisionist is deliberately neglecting to maintain the opposite party no.2 or n ot? and (v) whether opposite party no.2 is entitled to receive any amount as maintenance from the revisionist or not?.

8. The trial court, while deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. under the impugned judgment, has considered and discussed the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial by both the parties and has returned its finding on each and every issues.

9. While deciding the issue whether the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist or not, the trial court has considered the Paper No. 6B submitted by opposite party no.2 during the course of trial, which certifies the Hindu marriage of opposite party no.2 with the revisionist, which was issued by the Arya Samaj, Jamuna Bazaar, Delhi. The trial court has also considered the paper no. 36Kha/1 read with paper no. 36Kha/2 produced by the opposite party no.2 during the course of trial, which was the judgment and order dated 27 th February, 2018 passed by the trial court in Case No. 106 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist and his second wife Nandini Singh, whereby the revisionist was directed to bring the opposite party no.2 to his house and keep her as his wife and discharge the marital relationship with her and the revisionist and Nandini Singh were ordered by permanent injunction not to marry with each other. The trial court has also considered the paper No. 86KH/1 to 86KH/4, which is the agreement for construction of Cyber Cafe between opposite party no.2 and Deepak Khattar son of Diwan Chand executed in Delhi on 25-02-2011 at the fixed rent and the bank cheque dated 10-05-2011 issued by the revisionist in the name of Deepak Khattar and also paper no.86KH/3, which is the undertaking 6 of 12 given by Deepak Khattar in favour of opposite party no.2, as wife of the revisionist.

10. Eight photographs along with their negatives, which were produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court qua the marriage of opposite party no.2 with the revisionist, have also been considered by the trial court. In the said photographs, opposite party no.2 and the revisionist were taking seven rounds in front of the sacred fire.

11. The trial court has recorded that in the second part of his cross- examination being paper no. 46A/2, the revisionist has admitted that opposite party no.2 filed suit no. 106 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act but he did not remember whether he had submitted a written statement in the said suit or not. He also admitted that he lived in Delhi for one and a half years. Seeing the paper no. 8Kha/3, which is the copy of the Adhar Card of the revisionist produced by opposite party no.2 before the trial court, the revisionist admitted that the photograph shown on the said Adhar Card is his photograph.

12. After considering and examining the paper no. 6B, which is the certificate of Hindu marriage of opposite party no.2 and the revisionist issued by Arya Samaj, which is dully signed by two witnesses and their name and address were verified and certified, 8 original photographs along with their negatives, the copy of Aadhar card being paper no. 8Kha/3 of the revisionist, wherein address is mentioned as 76 Ber Sarai, Hauz Khas, S.O., South West Delhi 110016, the suit of conjugal rights filed by opposite party no.2 and the order passed therein, which fact has also been admitted by the revisionist, the bank check, which was issued by the revisionist, while he was in Delhi in favour of one Deepak Khattar for execution of agreement, the trial court has recorded its finding that the ground taken by the revisionist before the trial court that the marriage between the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist is 7 of 12 a fake marriage, has no legs to stand, only on the basis of oral evidence. After recording such finding, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 has proved by oral as well as documentary evidence that she is the Hindu legal wife of the revisionist. The trail court has also considered the decision and decree of the trial court dated 27th February, 2018 passed in Case No. 106 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has become final, as the appeal has not been admitted nor has it been dismissed. As such, as per the law, the decree and the finding recorded in the said decree are binding upon the revisionist. Accordingly, the trial court has decided that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

13. Qua the issue no.2 the trial court has recorded that it is specific version of opposite party no.2 that the revisionist returned from Delhi to Maharajganj and thereafter he sent the opposite party no.2 to her parents' house and since then, neither did he come to call her back at her parental house nor was she given any maintenance, therefore, opposite party no.2 filed case no.106 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which degree was passed on 27th February, 2018 in favour of opposite party no.2 but the revisionist still failed to comply the same.

14. After observing the fact that since the facts and issues of the above judgment and decree passed on 27th February, 2018 are fully applicable to this case, the trial court has held that opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist for reasonable cause.

15. So far as the issue that the opposite party no.2 is unable to maintain herself or not, is concerned, the trial court has recorded that though as per the document being paper no. 44Ka/2, which was emphasized by the revisionist before the trial court, the opposite party no.2 lived with the revisionist in Delhi, where she ran a mobile phone shop and delivered cooked meals to students in a Delhi Government 8 of 12 School, going door-to-door from which she earned one thousand rupees per household, or 3,000 rupees per month, but the said fact predates the filing of the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be precise on 27th May, 2017 i.e. after returning of the revisionist and opposite party no.2 from Delhi to District Maharajganj and thereafater the revisionist sent opposite party no.2 to her parents' home. On the basis of aforesaid fact, the trail court has opined that it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 2 has any income even after her return from Delhi. It is also mentioned that as per the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 27th February, 2018 passed in Case No. 106 of 2016 filed buy opposite party no.2 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, after the death of first husband of opposite party no.2, namely, Virendra Singh, the revisionist is her husband. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties during the course of trial court, the trial court has opined that there is no evidence available on record as to whether the land, which were sold by Krishna Kumar Singh in favour of opposite party no.2 through registered sale-deed, which were produced as papers number 63B/1 through 63B/10 by the revisionist before the trial court, generates any income, and if so, how much. The trial court has recorded that on the perusal of the aforesaid sale-deed, it is clear that the said land was executed for construction of house but neither was there any construction already made nor any business was running thereon. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has decided the said issue in favour of the opposite party no.2, while holding that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income to maintain herself.

16. Qua the issue whether the revisionist is deliberately neglecting to provide any maintenance to opposite party no.2 or not, the trial court has recorded that in paragraph no.11 of his objection/application regarding his income, the revisionist has admitted that he runs a computer café business in Kolhul and has opened a shop of gravel, 9 of 12 sand, rods and cement. He has also 8 acres of agricultural land and from all the aforesaid sources, he is receiving total Rs. 80,000/- per month. The trial court has also recorded that the revisionist and opposite party no.2 have also submitted their affidavits qua their income, expenditure and property, which are available on the file in the form of paper number nos. 69Ka and 73Ka, in which the parties have not given details of any property, whereas the revisionist has shown his expenditure as Rs. 70,000/- per month and has called himself unemployed, but it is clear from Khatauni, being paper no. 66Kha that the father of the revisionist has agricultural land from which the revisionist earns money because he is only son of his parents. The revisionist has stated in his written statements, which is paper no.24Ka that he is the husband of opposite party no.2 and the responsibility to maintain herself is upon his shoulders and it is an admitted position that he is deliberately neglecting to provide maintenance to her. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has decided the aforesaid issue in favour of opposite party no.2.

17. The trial court, while deciding the issue no.5 whether the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get any amount of maintenance allowance from the revisionist or not, has followed the findings recorded qua issue no.4 and has found that the revisionist has sufficient income from agricultural land. As such, the trial court has opined that the opposite party no.2 is entitled to receive monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000 from the revisionist from the date of submission of the application. Accordingly, the trail court has decided the said issue in favour of opposite party no.2.

18. On the deeper scrutiny of the findings recorded by the trial court, while deciding all fives issues under the impugned judgment are categorical findings of facts on each and every issues so framed during the course of trial, which are based on correct appreciation of oral as 10 of 12 well as documentary evidence, this Court is in full agreement with the same.

19. While deciding the issue no.1, the trial court has rightly recorded its finding that opposite party no.2 has proved her case that she is legally wedded wife of revisionist, after death of her first husband, namely, Virendra Singh. Only by oral evidence that the documents produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court for certifying her Hindu marriage with the revisionist are forged and fabricated, no documentary evidence has been produced by the revisionist before the trial court to prove his case that opposite party no.2 is not his legally wedded wife.

20. In the opinion of the Court, a document produced before a court cannot be considered to be fake unless it can be proved to be fake or incorrect by some material documentary evidence. Even if, this Court assumes for a moment that the documents submitted by the opposite party no.2 to prove hes Hindu marriage with the revisionist, are false and forged and that the photographs of the said marriage, which were also submitted, have been morphed, then how can this Court accept that the negatives of those photographs are also fake?.

21. Besides the above, from the perusal of the entire records and also the impugned judgment, it is not cropped up that for proving his case that the documents and photographs produced by opposite party no.2 for certifying her marriage with the revisionist are forged and fabricated, the revisionist has filed any application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by which the revisionist has been provided statutory remedy for proving the aforesaid documents as forged or fabricated.

22. This Court may also take note of the fact that under the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2018 passed in suit filed by opposite party no.2 against the revisionist and his alleged lover or second wife Nandini Singh, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for conjugal rights, which has become final between the parties at the 11 of 12 time of passing of the impugned judgment, as neither the appeal against the same has been admitted nor the same has been allowed, the trial court has already held that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

23. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, the revisionist has admitted before the trial court that he runs a computer café business in Kolhui and has opened a shop of gravel, sand, rods and cement. He has also 8 acres of agricultural land and from all the aforesaid sources, he is receiving total Rs. 80,000/- per month.

24. On the above deliberations and discussions, this Court finds no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist in support of the present criminal revision. This Court also does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

25. Consequently, the present criminal revisionist is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

26. There shall be no order as cots. Order Date: 29th October, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh, J.) 12 of 12

evidence adduced by the revisionist before the trial court, has passed the impugned order while relying upon the averments of the opposite party no.2. (iii) Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 was married to the elder cousin brother of the revisionist, namely, Virendra Singh in the year 1997, who unfortunately died in the year 2009, leaving behind opposite party no.2 and her two minor children. Thereafter, father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 took responsibility of her maintenance and her two children and he had also transferred one house in her favour. After sad demise of her husband, opposite party no. 2 has also received cash, movable and immovable properties from her mother and several relatives. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 went to Delhi along with her children to stay there. Since opposite party no.2 was not satisfied with the aforesaid financial assistance and to break the matrimonial life of revisionist and also to grab his property, she filed the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the basis of some forged and fabricated documents, which were prepared by her with the help of certain local leaders of rulling party. (iv) The revisionist never resided in Delhi with opposite party no.2 and his marriage was never solemnized with the opposite party no.2 and there was no conjugal relation with the opposite party no.2, as such, the question of birth of any child from their wedlock does not arise. 2 of 12 (v) The marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi, which has been relied upon and produced by the opposite party no.2 during the course of trial, is a forged document and in that regard the revisionist has made a complaint qua the said forgery against opposite party no.2 before the competent authority. The photographs produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court for certifying her marriage with revisionist, are morphed by using Artificial Intelligence, which were based on software. In the said photographs, the picture of the revisionist was altered with the photographs of her late husband, namely, Virendra Singh with whom her marriage was solemnized in the year 1997. (vi) The father-in-law of the opposite party no.2, who is also uncle of the revisionist, submitted an affidavit before the In-charge Station House Officer, Police Station-Kolhul, District Maharajganj that the opposite party no.2 is his widowed daughter-in-law and has been living with him and that the opposite party no. 2 has not married again after the death of his on Virendra Singh. Opposite party no.2 is blatantly lying and is still using her late husband’s name with her, as is evident from the sale-deed dated 18th May, 2022 and will deed dated 19th May, 2022. (vii). The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and in order to establish the marriage, cohabitation must be established by evidence but in the present case, no evidence qua the cohabitation has been brought on record. Also, in the present case, the basic ingredients to prove a valid marriage were lacking and no evidence was brought on record by opposite party no.2 in that regard. (viii) The opposite party no. 2 could not demonstrate before the trail court as to why she has left the house of the revisionist and therefore, her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 3 of 12 (ix) The revisionist has sufficient income to maintain herself. After sad demise of her husband, her father-in-law transferred a house in her name, she has also received cash, movable and immovable properties from her relatives and her mother. (x) Lastly, the revisionist is living in penury and he is working as a mobile repair mechanic, therefore, the amount awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance is too exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is illegal, contrary to material available on record and has been passed without application of mind, exceeding the jurisdiction vested in the Principal Judge of Family Court, as such, the same is liable to be quashed while allowing the present criminal revision.

4. 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 there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court while awarding Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

5. Apart from the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 13th March, 2010 and after Vidai, she went to the opposite party's home to perform her duties of a wife. Prior to the said marriage, the Hindu marriage of opposite party no.2 took place with the cousin brother of the revisionist, namely, Virendra Singh in the year 4 of 12

1997. However, during a robbery occurred at his home, Virendra Singh was murdered by robbers. Subsequently, with the consent of all family members, the revisionist and opposite party no.2 entered into a Hindu marriage. The opposite party no.2 has a son and daughter from her previous marriage, who were 9 and 17 years old on the date of filing of the instant application. The the revisionist used to do business in Delhi but returned, leaving the opposite party no.2 at her parents' home and stopped to give her maintenance because he was determined to marry again with some one else, due to which the opposite party no.2 filed a suit being Suit No. 106/2016 (Sarika Singh vs Vipin Singh) for conjugal rights in the trial court, and when the said matter was pending, the revisionist solemnized his second marriage with one Nandani Singh, daughter of Sitaram Singh. The opposite party no.2 has no source of income and is unable to support herself and her children. The revisionist has a huge business of computers and cafes in Kolhul and he is also doing business of gravel, sand, cement and rods, he has house and 08 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns Rs. 80,000/- per month. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the trial court has recorded categorical finding of facts and committed no error in passing the impugned judgment, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

7. For deciding the present criminal revision, it is necessary for this Court to refer to the issues so framed by the trial court for passing the impugned judgment, while deciding the instant application under Section 125. The issues are (i) whether the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist or not?, (ii) whether the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist with sufficient 5 of 12 cause or reason or not?, (iii) whether the opposite party no.2 is unable to maintain herself or not?, (iv) whether the revisionist is deliberately neglecting to maintain the opposite party no.2 or n ot? and (v) whether opposite party no.2 is entitled to receive any amount as maintenance from the revisionist or not?.

8. The trial court, while deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. under the impugned judgment, has considered and discussed the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial by both the parties and has returned its finding on each and every issues.

9. While deciding the issue whether the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist or not, the trial court has considered the Paper No. 6B submitted by opposite party no.2 during the course of trial, which certifies the Hindu marriage of opposite party no.2 with the revisionist, which was issued by the Arya Samaj, Jamuna Bazaar, Delhi. The trial court has also considered the paper no. 36Kha/1 read with paper no. 36Kha/2 produced by the opposite party no.2 during the course of trial, which was the judgment and order dated 27 th February, 2018 passed by the trial court in Case No. 106 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist and his second wife Nandini Singh, whereby the revisionist was directed to bring the opposite party no.2 to his house and keep her as his wife and discharge the marital relationship with her and the revisionist and Nandini Singh were ordered by permanent injunction not to marry with each other. The trial court has also considered the paper No. 86KH/1 to 86KH/4, which is the agreement for construction of Cyber Cafe between opposite party no.2 and Deepak Khattar son of Diwan Chand executed in Delhi on 25-02-2011 at the fixed rent and the bank cheque dated 10-05-2011 issued by the revisionist in the name of Deepak Khattar and also paper no.86KH/3, which is the undertaking 6 of 12 given by Deepak Khattar in favour of opposite party no.2, as wife of the revisionist.

10. Eight photographs along with their negatives, which were produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court qua the marriage of opposite party no.2 with the revisionist, have also been considered by the trial court. In the said photographs, opposite party no.2 and the revisionist were taking seven rounds in front of the sacred fire.

11. The trial court has recorded that in the second part of his cross- examination being paper no. 46A/2, the revisionist has admitted that opposite party no.2 filed suit no. 106 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act but he did not remember whether he had submitted a written statement in the said suit or not. He also admitted that he lived in Delhi for one and a half years. Seeing the paper no. 8Kha/3, which is the copy of the Adhar Card of the revisionist produced by opposite party no.2 before the trial court, the revisionist admitted that the photograph shown on the said Adhar Card is his photograph.

12. After considering and examining the paper no. 6B, which is the certificate of Hindu marriage of opposite party no.2 and the revisionist issued by Arya Samaj, which is dully signed by two witnesses and their name and address were verified and certified, 8 original photographs along with their negatives, the copy of Aadhar card being paper no. 8Kha/3 of the revisionist, wherein address is mentioned as 76 Ber Sarai, Hauz Khas, S.O., South West Delhi 110016, the suit of conjugal rights filed by opposite party no.2 and the order passed therein, which fact has also been admitted by the revisionist, the bank check, which was issued by the revisionist, while he was in Delhi in favour of one Deepak Khattar for execution of agreement, the trial court has recorded its finding that the ground taken by the revisionist before the trial court that the marriage between the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist is 7 of 12 a fake marriage, has no legs to stand, only on the basis of oral evidence. After recording such finding, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 has proved by oral as well as documentary evidence that she is the Hindu legal wife of the revisionist. The trail court has also considered the decision and decree of the trial court dated 27th February, 2018 passed in Case No. 106 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has become final, as the appeal has not been admitted nor has it been dismissed. As such, as per the law, the decree and the finding recorded in the said decree are binding upon the revisionist. Accordingly, the trial court has decided that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

13. Qua the issue no.2 the trial court has recorded that it is specific version of opposite party no.2 that the revisionist returned from Delhi to Maharajganj and thereafter he sent the opposite party no.2 to her parents' house and since then, neither did he come to call her back at her parental house nor was she given any maintenance, therefore, opposite party no.2 filed case no.106 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which degree was passed on 27th February, 2018 in favour of opposite party no.2 but the revisionist still failed to comply the same.

14. After observing the fact that since the facts and issues of the above judgment and decree passed on 27th February, 2018 are fully applicable to this case, the trial court has held that opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist for reasonable cause.

15. So far as the issue that the opposite party no.2 is unable to maintain herself or not, is concerned, the trial court has recorded that though as per the document being paper no. 44Ka/2, which was emphasized by the revisionist before the trial court, the opposite party no.2 lived with the revisionist in Delhi, where she ran a mobile phone shop and delivered cooked meals to students in a Delhi Government 8 of 12 School, going door-to-door from which she earned one thousand rupees per household, or 3,000 rupees per month, but the said fact predates the filing of the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be precise on 27th May, 2017 i.e. after returning of the revisionist and opposite party no.2 from Delhi to District Maharajganj and thereafater the revisionist sent opposite party no.2 to her parents' home. On the basis of aforesaid fact, the trail court has opined that it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 2 has any income even after her return from Delhi. It is also mentioned that as per the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 27th February, 2018 passed in Case No. 106 of 2016 filed buy opposite party no.2 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, after the death of first husband of opposite party no.2, namely, Virendra Singh, the revisionist is her husband. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties during the course of trial court, the trial court has opined that there is no evidence available on record as to whether the land, which were sold by Krishna Kumar Singh in favour of opposite party no.2 through registered sale-deed, which were produced as papers number 63B/1 through 63B/10 by the revisionist before the trial court, generates any income, and if so, how much. The trial court has recorded that on the perusal of the aforesaid sale-deed, it is clear that the said land was executed for construction of house but neither was there any construction already made nor any business was running thereon. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has decided the said issue in favour of the opposite party no.2, while holding that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income to maintain herself.

16. Qua the issue whether the revisionist is deliberately neglecting to provide any maintenance to opposite party no.2 or not, the trial court has recorded that in paragraph no.11 of his objection/application regarding his income, the revisionist has admitted that he runs a computer café business in Kolhul and has opened a shop of gravel, 9 of 12 sand, rods and cement. He has also 8 acres of agricultural land and from all the aforesaid sources, he is receiving total Rs. 80,000/- per month. The trial court has also recorded that the revisionist and opposite party no.2 have also submitted their affidavits qua their income, expenditure and property, which are available on the file in the form of paper number nos. 69Ka and 73Ka, in which the parties have not given details of any property, whereas the revisionist has shown his expenditure as Rs. 70,000/- per month and has called himself unemployed, but it is clear from Khatauni, being paper no. 66Kha that the father of the revisionist has agricultural land from which the revisionist earns money because he is only son of his parents. The revisionist has stated in his written statements, which is paper no.24Ka that he is the husband of opposite party no.2 and the responsibility to maintain herself is upon his shoulders and it is an admitted position that he is deliberately neglecting to provide maintenance to her. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has decided the aforesaid issue in favour of opposite party no.2.

17. The trial court, while deciding the issue no.5 whether the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get any amount of maintenance allowance from the revisionist or not, has followed the findings recorded qua issue no.4 and has found that the revisionist has sufficient income from agricultural land. As such, the trial court has opined that the opposite party no.2 is entitled to receive monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000 from the revisionist from the date of submission of the application. Accordingly, the trail court has decided the said issue in favour of opposite party no.2.

18. On the deeper scrutiny of the findings recorded by the trial court, while deciding all fives issues under the impugned judgment are categorical findings of facts on each and every issues so framed during the course of trial, which are based on correct appreciation of oral as 10 of 12 well as documentary evidence, this Court is in full agreement with the same.

19. While deciding the issue no.1, the trial court has rightly recorded its finding that opposite party no.2 has proved her case that she is legally wedded wife of revisionist, after death of her first husband, namely, Virendra Singh. Only by oral evidence that the documents produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court for certifying her Hindu marriage with the revisionist are forged and fabricated, no documentary evidence has been produced by the revisionist before the trial court to prove his case that opposite party no.2 is not his legally wedded wife.

20. In the opinion of the Court, a document produced before a court cannot be considered to be fake unless it can be proved to be fake or incorrect by some material documentary evidence. Even if, this Court assumes for a moment that the documents submitted by the opposite party no.2 to prove hes Hindu marriage with the revisionist, are false and forged and that the photographs of the said marriage, which were also submitted, have been morphed, then how can this Court accept that the negatives of those photographs are also fake?.

21. Besides the above, from the perusal of the entire records and also the impugned judgment, it is not cropped up that for proving his case that the documents and photographs produced by opposite party no.2 for certifying her marriage with the revisionist are forged and fabricated, the revisionist has filed any application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by which the revisionist has been provided statutory remedy for proving the aforesaid documents as forged or fabricated.

22. This Court may also take note of the fact that under the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2018 passed in suit filed by opposite party no.2 against the revisionist and his alleged lover or second wife Nandini Singh, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for conjugal rights, which has become final between the parties at the 11 of 12 time of passing of the impugned judgment, as neither the appeal against the same has been admitted nor the same has been allowed, the trial court has already held that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

23. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, the revisionist has admitted before the trial court that he runs a computer café business in Kolhui and has opened a shop of gravel, sand, rods and cement. He has also 8 acres of agricultural land and from all the aforesaid sources, he is receiving total Rs. 80,000/- per month.

24. On the above deliberations and discussions, this Court finds no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist in support of the present criminal revision. This Court also does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

25. Consequently, the present criminal revisionist is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

26. There shall be no order as cots. Order Date: 29th October, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh, J.) 12 of 12