HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2445 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to press the present revision. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad in Case No. 192 of 2022 (Priynaka Bansal Vs. Nitin Agrwal), whereby the trial court has rejected the Application 29-B filed by the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. 3. The brief of facts of the present case are that the opposite party nos. 2 was filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which, the interim maintenance was awarded in favour of opposite party no. 2 along with her daughter of Rs. 30,000/- in total. Subsequently a compromise was made between the parties in the chamber of Presiding Officer before the trial court, wherein parties were agreed to reside with each other and the revisionist is ready to take her back in the rented house, however, this agreement was not in written but the revisionist has taken rented house even though the opposite party no.2 had not ready to live with the revisionist. On the basis of that revisionist has moved an application under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. before the trial court that the opposite party no.2 is not ready to live with the revisionist and residing separately without any reason, the said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 17.02.2024. Hence the present criminal revision before this Court. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pankaj Agarwal, Utkarshni Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nitin Agarwal .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.02.2024 reflects that the trial court, in paragraph no. 5, has recorded a specific finding merely on the basis of the compromise, observing that if one of the parties does not comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise, the trial court cannot presume that she is not willing to reside with her husband. The trial court has further recorded that this issue shall be decided finally on merits after due appreciation of evidence. 5. Since the trial court has recorded its finding that the issue regarding living separately by the opposite party no.2 cannot be decided at this stage and shall be decided finally on merits after due appreciation of evidence and no prejudice would be caused to the revisionist. 6. On the above premise, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and calls for no interference by this Court. 7. The criminal revision is devoid of merits and, is accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in case, revisionist files application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on the basis of changed circumstances, the same shall be heard and decided by the trial court expeditiously in accordance with law. October 17, 2025 Akbar CRLR No. 2445 of 2024 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad