Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135723 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 822 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rinku Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Hemanta Yadav,Rajendra Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kailash Nath,Manoj Yadav Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Jaunpur in Maintenance Case No. 799 of 2009 (Rinku Yadav Vs. Anil Kumar Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Chandwak, District Jaunpur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, she is wife of opposite party no. 2 living apart from him in her maika. The marriage was performed on 14.05.2009 and in the month of April, 2011 a daughter was born to her from the wedlock and thereafter second child Krish was born in the month of March, 2015. In the year 2019, the opposite party no. 2 and other members of his family misbehaved with the revisionist and beaten her and she was compelled to live in her maika, since then she is living there. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2 which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 21.11.2024 on the ground that without any sufficient reason she is living in her maika separate from him and also gave birth to a child Krish as a result of illicit relationship. The finding recorded by the learned trial court is against the material on record. The revisionist being wife of opposite party no. 2 met at time to time with opposite party no. 2 and from their wedlock the son Krish was born but the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in proper way but dismissed the application by committing error, therefore, requests to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 21.11.2024 and allow the revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case from the testimony as deposed by the revisionist before the learned trial court, it is clear that she started living in her maika apart from opposite party no. 2 from the year 2012 and a daughter was born in the year 2011 who is living with the opposite party no. 2. The male child, Krish was born in the year 2015 when she was living in her maika. She clearly stated that for a period of five years she lived in her maika and in the meantime, son Krish was born, it shows that there was no any meeting of opposite party no. 2 with the revisionist therefore, the son Krish was born as a result of illicit relationship with some other person. On this ground the learned trial court has dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 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, order passed by learned trial court dated 21.11.2024 and the statement of the revisionist herself, it appears that the marriage of both of them was performed in the year 2009 and a daughter was born in the year 2011 who is living with the opposite party no. 2, the father. From the year 2012 the revisionist/wife is living in her maika and son Krish was born in the year 2015. She deposed before the learned trial court that she lived in her maika for a period of five years and in the meantime, Krish was born. This statement of the revisionist establishes the fact that the son Krish was not born with the opposite party no. 2 and it infers that she is living in relations with some other person. As provided under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. that if the wife is living without sufficient reason separate from the husband or in adultery, she is not entitled for maintenance from the husband. The learned trial court has recorded clear cut finding in this regard in issue no. 1 and then after considering all the material on record, dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 21.11.2024. In this way, 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 itself. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad