HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6153 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed a rejoinder affidavit during the course of the day, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 3. Perused the record. 4. Revisionist Smt. Manisha Shankhwar has approached this Court by means of the instant criminal revision assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Case No. 737/12/2022, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the claim of maintenance of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of applicant No. 2, the minor son of the revisionist and O.P. No. 2, and directing O.P. No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant criminal revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned order is against the evidence on record and is based on surmises and conjectures. A prayer has, accordingly, been made for allowing the instant criminal revision and setting aside the impugned order. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Nikhil Saxena, Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Radhey Shyam Yadav, G.A. Smt. Manisha Shankhwar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that when she reached her matrimonial house at the time of her first Vidai, O.P. No. 2 started quarrelling with her on account of demand of dowry and put pressure upon her for fulfilment of the said demand. Her marriage was solemnized in the year 2014. Thereafter, the revisionist was ousted from her matrimonial house. However, the Trial Court did not consider the aforesaid facts and rejected the claim of maintenance made by the revisionist. It is thus contended that, in the aforesaid conspectus, the instant criminal revision may be allowed by this Court. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the instant criminal revision. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph No. 10-(ण) of the impugned judgment and order, which is available at page 16 of the paper book, wherein the Trial Court has recorded as follows: "(ण) िवपक्षी अपने अिभकथन व बयानों में यह कह कर आया है िक वह प्रािथनी व पुत्र को अपने साथ रखने के िलए तैयार है। इस सम्बंध में यिद हम प्रािथनी के बयानों को देखें तो उसने अपनी िजरह के पृ०-3 पर यह कहा है िक...... यिद िशवेन्द्र न्यायालय में इस बात का शपथ पत्र दे िक मैं न कोई मांग करूंगा, न िकसी प्रकार की मार पीट करूंगा, तब भी मैं िशवेन्द्र के साथ नहीं रहूंगी! इसी क्रम में यह भी कहा है िक...... यिद िशवेन्द्र मेरी सारी सुख सुिवधा का ध्यान रखे, तब भी मैं िशवेन्द्र के साथ नहीं रहूंगी। िजरह के अंत में प्रािथनी ने िदया है िक... िशवेन्द्र मेरा व मेरे बच्चे का िकतने भी अच्छे से ख्याल रखे, तब भी मैं उसके साथ नहीं रहूंगी। प्रािथनी की माता पी०डब्लू०-2 ने भी अपने बयानों में पृ०-6 पर यह कहा है िक...... अगर िशवेन्द्र न्यायालय में िलखकर दे िक वह बेटी को अच्छी तरह से रखेगा, उसकी आवश्यकता पूरी करेगा, दहेज की मांग नहीं करेगा, मुझे कोई परेशानी नहीं है, लेिकन मेरी लड़की जाने। इसी क्रम में यह भी कहा है िक...... मेरी बेटी ने अपने बयानों में यह कहा है िक िशवेन्द्र मेरी बेटी को िकतनी भी अच्छे से रखे, मेरी बेटी नहीं रहेगी। यह मेरी बेटी की इच्छा है। अपनी िजरह के अंत में भी इस साक्षी का यही बयान आया है िक...... िशवेन्द्र आज भी अपनी पत्नी को अपने साथ रखने को तैयार है, लेिकन मेरी बेटी की इच्छा है िक वह जाये, या न जाये। इस प्रकार जहां प्रािथनी ने स्पष्ट रूप से िकसी भी दशा में िवपक्षी के साथ जाकर दाम्पत्य कतर्व्यों के िनवर्हन करने से इन्कार िकया है, वहीं उसकी माता ने भी अपनी पुत्री को भेजने के प्रित अपनी कोई उत्सुकता या गम्भीरता नहीं दशार्यी है।" Thus, there is nothing on record to establish that the revisionist is living separately from O.P. No. 2 for any sufficient or justifiable reason. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of maintenance made by the revisionist, and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. CRLR No. 6153 of 2025 2 8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the revisionist could not over come the same. 9. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are borne out from the record. The Trial Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The instant criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 10. Accordingly, it is dismissed. September 8, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 6153 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad