HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5435 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to press the present revision. Hence this criminal revision is being decided after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA. 2. Heard Sri Rajkapoor Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No. 660 of 2021 (Shakuntla Devi Vs. Ram Surat Yadav), whereby the trial court has rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 05.05.2009 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is further submitted that after about thirteen years of marriage, the revisionist/wife could not be blessed with a child, and for this reason, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the opposite party no.2/husband and by her in-laws and thrown out from her matrimonial home. In this regard, the revisionist lodged an FIR against her husband and her in-laws, which was registered as Case Crime No. 313 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 494, and 342 of the I.P.C., at Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj. It is further contended that subsequently, opposite party no.2 performed second marriage and out of their wedlock, a female child was born. The revisionist has filed certain photographs (Paper No. 21- Gha/2) in support of her contention regarding the second marriage, however, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajkapoor Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, Shyam Sunder Yadav Shakuntala Devi .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) all these relevant facts were not taken into consideration by the trial court while rejecting the application filed by the revisionist. 5. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by court below, it appears that admittedly, the revisionist is legally wedded wife of the opposite party no. 2, hence it is the pious duty of the opposite party no. 2 to maintain his wife. From the impugned judgment, it reflects that the revisionist has stated in his application that after 13 years of her marriage, could not be blessed with any child, thereafter dispute arose between the husband and wife and for said reason, opposite party no.2 has performed his second marriage with Smt. Pooja and from their wedlock a girl child was born and now the opposite party no.2 presently residing with her second wife at Officer Colony, Teliyerganj. The impugned judgment also reflects the revisionist had lodged the FIR against opposite party no.2 but these facts were not considered by the trial court. 7. From a perusal of the judgment, it reflects that revisionist was ousted from her matrimonial home on account of not having any child, it was the duty of the trial court to scrutinize the matter deeply and if any additional evidence is required the same should have been considered and decide the real controversy between the parties. It is common question that married women cannot left her matrimonial home unless and until the situation may have become unbearable. It appears from the judgment that the trial court has reached at conclusion that revisionist is living separately without any sufficient reason, while it appears from the judgment itself that the revisionist has made allegation against her husband/opposite party no.2 that he is performed second marriage. 8. Hence, reasons which have been recorded by the trial court with regard to the separate living cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial to the woman, hence it was enacted for the protection of the women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. There is is is the legal and pious duty of the husband to maintain her wife and children. 9. Keeping in view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that it is fit case to remit the matter before the trial court for deciding afresh. 10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and CRLR No. 5435 of 2024 2 order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No. 660 of 2021 (Shakuntla Devi Vs. Ram Surat Yadav) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is also clarified that the trial court shall reach the real controversy and status of the parties as alleged by revisionist, if required must take additional evidence so that real purpose of the Act would be served. October 6, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 5435 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad