HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5314 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Shri Swetashwa Agarwal, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Vandeep Nath, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party and perusal the material on record. 3. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1204 of 2021 (Akansha Baliyan and another Vs. Pradeep Singh Baliyan), by which the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist has no source of income, she was treated with cruelty, no matrimonial alimony has been granted from her husband, however, she is living separately on the basis compromise, hence she was entitled to get maintenance. It is further stated that in the case of Kalyan Dey Chgowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200, the Apex Court observed that the wife is entitled to get 1/4th share income of the husband but this fact was not considered by the trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionist. It is further stated that the revisionist has no source of income, now she is dependent on her father and he is having other liability also on his shoulder. In such circumstances, the trial court should not have been rejected the application of maintenance of the revisionist. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sourabh Pathak, Varun Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Smt. Akansha Baliyan .....Revisionist(s) Pradeep Singh Baliyan .....Opposite Party(s) 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 stated that the argument of the counsel for the revisionist are totally misconceived and against the facts. The revisionist is living separately on the basis of compromise at her own will. Learned counsel further drawn the attention of the Court towards the compromise which has been annexed from page nos. 86 to 90. He further stated that the revisionist is having the degree of Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) and she is working as Physiotherapist in the hospital of her father in Kasba Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr and earns a handsome amount per month. Learned counsel further stated that under the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is provided that if the wife is living separately with mutual consent,she will not be entitled to get any maintenance from her husband, hence the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, however, there is no dispute regarding relation between the wife and husband. During course of argument it was also admitted by the revisionist that there was a compromise took place between the parties and on the basis of same she started living separately. 7. The sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that in case the wife is living in adultery, in that situation, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. For kind convenient sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is being reproduced below: "(4). No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent." 8. Since revisionist is living separately from her husband by mutual consent on the basis of compromise, hence this Court is of the considered opinion that the revisionist is having the degree of Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) and she is working as Physiotherapist in the hospital of her father in Kasba Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr and earns a handsome amount per month and also keeping in view the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. quoted above, the trial court has rightly reached at the conclusion that the revisionist is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband CRLR No. 5314 of 2024 2 and accordingly rejected her claim. The trial court has framed as many as eight issues and these issues were discussed in detail, therefore, this Court being the Revisional Court, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also substitute its own finding in place of findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue in question unless the finding is completely perverse or against the facts and law. Hence, the criminal revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merit is dismissed. October 10, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 5314 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad