Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84275 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6212 of 2024 Revisionist :- Najama Khatoon Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Maurya, Satyendra Singh Chandel, Upmanyu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent. 2. The revision was admitted on 09.01.2025 and notices were issued to opposite party No. 2 through Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. 3. Office report dated 19.02.2025 coupled with report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj indicates that notice has been served upon opposite party No. 2. 4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 5. The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2024 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that rejection is only on the ground that according to the learned Principal Judge, nothing was brought on record to demonstrate lodging of any complaint in relation to act of cruelty committed by opposite party No. 2, although even the said finding is perverse in view of the material placed before the Family Court as regards criminal proceedings. He otherwise submits that opposite party No. 2 did not lead any evidence in the matter and, therefore, the ex-parte version of the applicant should have been accepted by the Court. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that apart from the fact that finding based on record was recorded by the learned Principal Judge regarding no evidence qua criminal proceedings, rejection is also on the ground that the learned court below has found the case as covered by Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., i.e. the applicant is residing separately as per her own wish and without any reasonable cause and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. The order impugned reveals that opposite party No. 2 filed his written objections and denied allegations of any demand of dowry. The matter thereafter proceeded ex-parte as the opposite party No. 2 did not appear either to lead evidence or to contest the proceedings. Even the prosecution witnesses were not cross- examined. 9. In this background of situation, the Court should have accepted the contents of application duly proved by oral testimonies of P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3, however, it appears from the record that the Court was swayed with the bare statement contained in the written statement to the effect that the applicant was residing in her matrimonial home without any reasonable justification. 10. As far as the finding regarding criminal proceedings is concerned, the same appears to be perverse and, even otherwise, merely because some act of cruelty could or could not be established on record, the same being wholly irrelevant for the purposes of claim for maintenance. This Court is of the considered opinion that learned Principal Judge has grossly erred in rejecting the application. 11. There appears to be no ground as to why the contents of the application duly proved by oral testimony could not be given weightage and as to why bare statement contained in the written statement, which was not even proved by the defence evidence, could be accepted as a gospel truth. 12. In view of above discussion, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be decided on merits and mere non-filing or lack of some documents relating to criminal proceedings, if any, or separate living of the applicant in her matrimonial home, in the facts of the case, cannot be treated as a ground for rejection of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the learned Principal Judge to the aforesaid extent are set aside. 13. The revision is allowed. 14. The order impugned dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Case No. 497 of 2021 (Najama Khatoon vs. Mohammad Tahir), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj is set aside. 15. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is restored and revived to its original number. 16. Learned Principal Judge, Maharajganj shall decide the same on merits by the end of August, 2025 in the light of observations made in this order. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Sazia Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad