Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142246 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 554 of 2025 Revisionist :- Ravi Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary (Home) And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Notice has already been served on the opposite party no.2/ the wife and case was taken up on 14.8.2025 but none put in appearance on her behalf. As a result the case was fixed for today at 12.00 Noon but none appeared for the opposite party no.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. 3. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Case No.995 of 2022 (Smt. Seema Vs. Ravi Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist, who is living separate from him without any sufficient reason with some other person namely Sachin. She is passing her life in adultery, though she was married to him in the year 2011 and living separate from him as aforesaid from the year 2021. He further submits that during the course of trial, the revisionist examined himself as OPW-1 and Kuldeep, the father of opposite party no.2/the wife examined as OPW-2 and Smt. Sundari, the mother of the opposite party no.2/the wife examined as OPW-3. The fact that opposite party no.2 is living with Sachin was affirmed by OPW-2 and OPW-3. The learned trial court while deciding the case did not consider the statements as deposed by OPW-2 and OPW-3 but passed the order dated 10.12.2024. The learned trial court has decided the issue no.1 in which he discussed the statement of APW-1(the opposite party no.2 wife/the applicant) and the statement of revisionist as OPW-2, though he was examined as OPW-1 and decided the issue on the basis of statements made by the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 only. The testimony of OPW-2 and OPW-3 has not been discussed by the learned trial court anywhere while deciding the issue. He also submits that the learned trial court has recorded the finding in the last of page 9 and in the beginning of page 10 of the order in question that as per the scheme of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. the wife is not living in adultery, since she has denied the fact of living separate from her husband without any sufficient cause. This finding recorded by the learned trial court is erroneous and beyond the evidence on record. He also submits that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the amount of maintenance Rs.6,000/- per month has been fixed by the learned trial court that is totally erroneous and being illegal is liable to be set aside and the revision be allowed. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the fact that learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of OPW-2 and OPW-3, those are father and mother of the opposite party no.2/the wife, who have clearly stated that she is living with Sachin as wife and husband. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 10.12.2024, it appears that the revisionist examined himself as OPW-1 and Kuldeep, the father of opposite party no.2 as OPW- 2 and Smt. Sundari, the mother of opposite party no.2 as OPW-3. OPW-2 and OPW-3 have clearly stated before the learned trial court that the opposite party no.2/the wife is living with Sachin as wife and husband and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the order in question. Nowhere the testimony of these two witnesses, those are the father and the mother of opposite party no.2/the wife, has been appreciated at all. This shows inadvertence on part of the learned trial court while appreciating the evidence on record. In this way, the finding recorded by learned trial court, according to the scheme of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. that she is not living in adultery, cannot be said to be sound and based on material on record, therefore, this order suffers illegality and impropriety and requires interference by this Court. 7. Consequently, the order dated 10.12.2024 being passed illegally and inappropriate is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass the order, afresh, after taking into consideration the evidence as adduced by both the parties during the course of trial, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad