Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90049 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6035 of 2024 Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Alias Pintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Case No.513 of 2018, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Savita Devi vs. Pankaj Kumar) Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonebhadra pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonebhadra. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party nos.3 & 4 are minor daughters of the revisionist. The marriage of opposite party no.2 and the revisionist was solemnized in the year 2009 but she started living separate from him from the year 2013. Thereafter, on the basis of compromise she came to his house but only for very short period of time. She filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against him which was allowed by the learned trial court by order dated 18.09.2024 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month for each minor daughter. He further submits that the opposite party no.2/the wife is not living in her maika but she is living with some other person namely Sudama S/o Bhullan Maurya resident of village Silhata, Police Station Karma, District Sonbhadra as wife. This fact came into his knowledge at later stage. He moved an application in this regard before the learned trial court on which verification was also got done by the learned court through the police concerned who filed a report that she is living at the house of Sudama for a period of 3 years, serving there and was also receiving ration from the fair price shop on the basis of her ration card. He also submits that certificate was given to him by the B.D.C. Member, Gram Panchayat Silhata on 02.10.2023 that she is living as wife with Sudama S/o Bhullan Maurya resident of Silhata but it was not taken into consideration by the learned trial court and final order was passed on 18.09.2024. In this way, the opposite party no.2/wife is living separate from him with other person, therefore, he cannot be said to be under legal obligation to maintain the wife and requests to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 18.09.2024 and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that full opportunity of evidence was given to the revisionist to adduce his evidence before the learned trial court but he did not examine the B.D.C. member issuing the certificate or any other witness to testify that opposite party no.2 was living with Sudama as wife. After passing the final order he may have an option to move an application in this regard before the learned trial court u/s 125(5) Cr.P.C. and if he proves this fact, the learned trial court which passed the order, shall cancel it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the opportunity of evidence was also given to the revisionist but he did not adduce any evidence in this regard before the learned trial court to show that the opposite party no.2 was living with Sudama as wife or she was living there in adultery except the application moved by him before the learned trial court which was got verified by the police who reported the court that she was serving in the house of Sudama but police did not report that she was living there as wife of Sudama. The B.D.C. member has also not been examined on the part of the revisionist before the learned trial court to testify the fact that opposite party no.2 was living as wife of Sudama or living in adultery. It is to note that u/s 125(5) Cr.P.C. even after the order passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C., it may be cancelled by the learned court on proof that wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery. In considered opinion of this Court, the burden of proving the fact that wife is living in adultery or she has entered into marriage with other person lies on the revisionist but he failed to prove this fact during the proceedings of the case, therefore, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 27.5.2025/Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad