Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59590 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 472 of 2025 Revisionist :- Varun Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Upendra Kumar Rai 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. and perusal the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to allow this revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Azamgarh in Case No. 14 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is said to be his wife though no marriage was performed with her but she was married wife of Satishchand @ Sachidanand who died in the year 2007. There is no any proof on record to show that opposite party no. 2 was married to the revisionist. Further submitted that a case under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was also filed by the opposite party no. 2 which was dismissed and against that order the learned appellate court also dismissed the appeal. In the present case, on the basis of certain documents filed on the part of the opposite party no. 2 order for maintenance has been passed by the learned trial court vide order dated 28.10.2024 fixing the amount of Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application i.e. 06.01.2014. It is also submitted that all the documents in which the name of revisionist has been mentioned as husband of opposite party no. 2 are forged and not reliable. The revisionist lives abroad in Saudi Arabia and his father is living here in India and makes paravi of this case. The father of the revisionist filed a complaint against opposite party no. 2 in which the learned court concerned passed the summoning order against her under Sections 323, 504 IPC for trial vide order dated 23.10.2017 in complaint case no. 75 of 2017. For grabing the property of the revisionist present case has been filed by the opposite party no 2. on the basis of forged documents, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 28.10.2024. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the first husband of the opposite party no. 2 died in the year 2007 and thereafter she entered into marriage with the revisionist as being related to each other as Bhabhi and Devar. All the documents filed by the opposite party no. 2 bears the name of revisionist as husband. No any complaint regarding any of the documents has been made by the revisionist to any competent authority that these documents were obtained by the opposite party no. 2 fraudulently or by committing fraud on the authority, therefore, it cannot be said that opposite party no. 2 is not wife of revisionist. It is further contended that dismissal of complaint under section 12 and also the appeal against that order cannot disqualify the wife for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also the trial court is not bound to pass the order following the complaint case. The learned trial court considered all the documents filed by the opposite party and then passed the order in question and amount fixed by the learned court cannot be said to be in excess but it less than sufficient. 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 the learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 clearly stated that her first husband Satischchand @ Sachidanand died in the year 2007 due to illness, thereafter she entered into marriage with the present revisionist. Later on she was neglected by the revisionist and other members of the family that was the reason she started living with her parents. The revisionist has denied the fact of marriage with the opposite party no. 2 and made statement that there is difference of age between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 and he never entered into marriage with her. The opposite party no. 2 has filed photocopy of Electoral Roll, Aadhar Card, Bank Passbook, Caste Certificate, Residential Certificate, Income Certificate, Certificate issued by Municipal Board, Azamgarh, Gas Cylinder Passbook, Voter List, statement from S.B.I., Punjab National Bank, Union Bank, Bajaj Aliance and photocopy of remail Institute and certificate issued by Nagar Palika Parishad date 14.07.2009 and 18.08.2023. All these documents bear the name of revisionist as husband of opposite party no. 2. It also appears that the revisionist has never made any complaint against the opposite party no. 2 regarding these documents to be obtained fraudulently or prepared by committing forgery. In this way, on the basis of aforesaid documents, it cannot be said that opposite party no. 2 is not wife of the revisionist. Learned trial court has considered the aforesaid documents and passed the order in question for maintenance against the revisionist as being husband of opposite party no. 2 and neglected her to maintain. It is also to note that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage is not necessary. If parties are in a live in relationship for a long time, it will give rise to a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, the Apex Court has also made such observation in para 39 to 40. In considered opinion of this Court in view of the aforesaid documents on record, it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 2 is not wife of the revisionist and the amount of maintenance Rs. 4000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2/wife can also not be said to be in excess. Thus, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad