Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20399 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3021 of 2023 Revisionist :- Smt. Sunita Gangwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sheshadri Trivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 2.5.2023 under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 321 of 2018, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly whereby application for maintenance has been dismissed. 2. As per office report dated 10.2.2025, notice has been served upon respondent no. 2 but none appeared to represent her in present case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with Anuj Kumar, who is respondent no. 2 before this court, on 14.3.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The revisionist was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and harassment and torture by her husband and parents-in-laws both physically and mentally for non fulfillment of demand of dowry even told by opposite party to commit suicide as she could not conceive. She was taunted by her husband and in-laws as infertile (barren). Her husband even neglected to maintain her when she took shelter at her parental home. 5. The respondent no. 2 has levelled false allegations against her that she tried to damage his clothes and she would treat him in cruel manner, but in fact revisionist having some illicit relationship with some other lady. The revisionist has been suffering from gynecological problem of irregular menstrual cycle for which she is not responsible but respondent no. 2 and his family members were behaving with her in very cruel manner for that reason and after continuous harassment and torture, she had to move her parental place. 6. He next submitted that learned court below has framed four points of determination and has given a finding that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2. She is not able to maintain herself as she is not possessed of any independent source of income. The respondent no. 2 is said to be a Software Engineer who worked in Ghaziabad. He earns Rs. 80,000/- per month. He is able to maintain the revisionist. The ITR for financial year 2020- 2021 of opposite party placed on record which shows that his total income is of Rs. 12, 6009/-, therefore, it appears that he is man of sufficient resources however learned court below refused the maintenance application of the applicant by giving a wrong finding that the applicant is living separately from her husband without sufficient cause on that basis concluded that the applicant is not entitled to receive any maintenance from her husband/ opposite party. 7. He next submitted that learned court below has misinterpreted the evidence of P.W. 2 Jaswir Singh, the brother of the revisionist, who stated that he intents to send off his sister to her matrimonial home on his own terms. The intention behind this statement of witness was that his family intended to send the revisionist to the place of respondent no. 2 if he ensures that they would treat her properly and in dignified manner. He did not intend that some unusual terms will be enforced on Vidai of the revisionist. He further submitted that finding of the learned court below that revisionist is living separately from husband without any sufficient cause is perverse and product of misappreciation of evidence appearing on record. 8. Revisionist has stated in her pleading and evidence that she was victimize by her husband and in-laws and being fed up with continuous maar-peet practiced against her by her husband, she had no option but to shift to her parental place. She was treated with cruelty by her husband and due to physical issues, she was not able to conceive without any fault on her part. 9. I have gone through the impugned judgement and order as well as statement of the revisionist and other witnesses recorded during hearing of the maintenance case. Learned trial court has drawn inference on some straw statement of the applicant/revisionist without considering the whole sworn testimony recorded by the learned trial court of the revisionist and her other witnesses. She has supported her version in her testimony before the Court that she has been subjected to harassment due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws. It was second marriage of her husband which was solemnized with her. Earlier opposite party no. 2 was married with some other woman, namely, Rupali and after some months the couple got separated due to cruel treatment extended by the opposite party no. 2 and his family members to said woman. The marriage of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized at the instance of uncle of her husband Anuj. 10. Her husband is Software Engineer. He works in Ghaziabad. Opposite party had kept her in his houses situated at Bareilly and Ghaziabad. His parents used to visit her and her husband even she was residing in Bareilly and Ghaziabad where they would treat her in very cruel manner and asked her to commit suicide. They often became abusive to her and would taunt her that she was barren. She was mercilessly beaten by her in-laws and she was ultimately send off her parental place in Bareilly. The opposite party and his family members did not change their attitude even then and were not ready to keep her with them. She was expelled from her matrimonial home after taking her stridhan and valuable articles. She has also stated that she has not been engaged in any job or employment. Her father died sometime earlier ofher marriage which took place on 14.3.2015. She is suffering from some internal injuries. Her menstrual cycle was not regular and used to occur after gap of 4 to 6 months. An over all appreciation of evidence of the witnesses particularly that of the revisionist Sunita Gangwar reveals that she has justifiable reason to live separately from her husband in view of maltreatment, torture and harassment given to her by husband and in-laws as pleaded and testified by her before learned court below. She has stated in her statement that she was living at her parental home for compelling reasons; she has not been provided any maintenance since she was sent to her parental place by opposite party and his family members. 11. Learned court below placed reliance on evidence of opposite party and his mother, witness Ganga Ram who is his father. The opposite party has stated in his evidence that his wife would used to sleep in the room of his mother. she told his mother that she was not feeling well and this state of affairs continued for two months. His mother sent revisionist to the place of opposite party in Ghaziabad even in Ghaziabad no physical relationship could be established between the spouse. She has stated that she is suffering from T.B. She was not taking medicine brought by him and used to say that purpose of marriage is not physical but spiritual. She cannot establish physical relationship with her husband or any other person as she would be polluted. She had even destroyed his clothes by sprinkling toilet cleaner thereon. She also destroyed TV and Computer. The father of opposite party no. 2 Ganga Prasad Gangwar also stated that his wife told him that Sunita is not able to establish physical relationship with her husband. 12. Learned court below has given finding that applicant has been living at her parental place without sufficient cause and has kept aside the pleadings and evidence of applicant who has stated herself as victim of matrimonial cruelty intended by her husband and his in-laws. Learned court below has dismissed the application for maintenance even after considering the fact that the opposite party is Software Engineer who works in Ghaziabad and earns sufficiently and he is a resourceful person and the applicant is not able to maintain herself, I am of considered opinion that the finding of fact recorded by learned court below that the applicant has been residing separately from her husband without sufficient cause is not outcome of proper appreciation of evidence adduced before the learned court below during hearing of the case and it appears to be product of misappreciation of evidence, therefore, the impugned judgement and order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 13. The impugned judgment and order dated 2.5.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly. is set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned family court concerned to decide the maintenance application filed by the revisionist a fresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties in light of observation made in present revisional order in accordance with law. It is also directed that respondent no. 2 shall pay Rs. 8,000/- as interim maintenance to the applicant/revisionist during pendency of said maintenance case i.e. Maintenance Case No. 321 of 2018. 14. Let copy of this order be forwarded to learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly for information and necessary action. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad