HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1131 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, in Case No. 52 of 2019 (Smt. Shivlochna Vs. Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Hussainganj, District Fatehpur. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and due to neglect on the part of opposite party no.2, she is living separately. Learned counsel further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has committed marpeet with the revisionist and in this regard a NCR was also registered against the opposite party no.2 and on account of that very reason, she is living separately. He next submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the revisionist has illicit relations with one Gore Lal and without considering all these aspects of the matter, the learned trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is against the fact and law, as such, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-opposite party no.1 have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and invited the attention of the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manvendra Singh Smt Shivlochna .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) court towards of paragraph no.28 of the judgment of the trial court, in which, OPW-4 the father of the revisionist in his examination-in-chief has stated as follows: मौिखक साक्षी OPW4, जो प्रािथनी का िपता है, ने अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में िवपक्षी के कथनों का समथर्न करते हुए कहा है िक उसकी पुत्री िशवलोचना अपनी िजद व गलती के कारण उसके दामाद (िवपक्षी) व उसके पिरवार वालों को प्रतािड़त करती रही है जबिक िवपक्षी व उसके पिरवार वालों द्वारा आज तक उससे अितिरक्त दहेज की माँग नहीं की गयी और न ही िवपक्षी दुष्चिरत्र व नशेबाज है और न ही उसके अन्य मिहला से कोई अवैध संबंध है। OPW4 ने कहा है िक उसकी पुत्री िशवलोचना स्वयं एक स्वच्छंद िवचारधारा की व झगड़ालू मिहला है और उसने अपने भरण-पोषण प्राथर्नापत्र में जो आरोप िवपक्षी के िवरुद्ध लगाये हैं वह झूठे एवं मनगढ़ंत हैं। िवपक्षी एक नेक इंसान है और प्रािथनी को पूवर् की भांित रखने को तैयार है परन्तु उसकी पुत्री िशवलोचना अपने गलत रवैये का कारण स्वयं नहीं जा रही है और गलत आधार पर यह मुकदमा योिजत िकया है। 5. From the testimony of OPW-4, who is the father of the revisionist, it transpires that the revisionist is a peevish and quarrelsome lady and she is voluntarily living separately from her husband without any reason. 6. In this case, while making any observation on the merits of the case, the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is necessary to have a glance, which is reproduced as below: 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents - "(1). ........... (2) . ........... (3). ............ (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." 7. The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself speaks that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance of maintenance either interim or finally, who is living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, here in the instant case the revisionist is living separately CRLR No. 1131 of 2024 2 from her husband, this fact also finds support from the examination-in-chief of OPW-4, who is the father of the revisionist and the trial court has also given its finding in respect of separate living of the revisionist and rejected the application of the revisionist moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has already recorded the findings of fact with regard to the separate living of the revisionist from her husband without sufficient cause and rejected her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the findings recorded by the trial court are correct and no illegality or perversity has been detected in it, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merit is dismissed. September 12, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 1131 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad