HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7843 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing the State, Ms. Anju Vishwakarma, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record. 2. The revisionist Sadhana Devi has approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Maintenance Case No. 1251 of 2021, Sadhana Devi v. Rajkumar, whereby the Trial Court rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has been filed on the ground that the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner. It is contended that the impugned order is wholly illegal and has been passed without application of judicial mind. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for allowing the present criminal revision and setting aside the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Trial Court, while deciding the Point for Determination No. 1, recorded a finding that opposite party no. 2 had admitted the solemnization of marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 and, accordingly, decided the said point for determination in favour of the revisionist. However, while deciding Point for Determination No. 2, the Trial Court erroneously observed that the revisionist was living separately from her husband without any sufficient or justifiable reason. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, after deciding the aforesaid two points for determination, the Trial Court Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Parmeshwar Yadav, Ravi Kumar Yadav, Ravi Prakash Pandey Sadhana Devi .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) observed that since Point for Determination No. 2 had been decided against the revisionist, there was no necessity to determine the remaining points for determination which were related to the maintenance. It is contended that such an approach is contrary to the settled principles governing judicial determination. Trial Court is required to determine each and every point for determination/issues framed in regular civil proceedings or in summary proceedings. Failure to determine each and every point for determination, according to learned counsel, vitiates the proceedings and renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. It is thus contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and supported the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that, while deciding Point for Determination No. 2, the Trial Court noticed that the revisionist's sister, in her statement recorded on paper no. 58ka/1 had stated that the revisionist was living happily at her parental house (Maika). On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the revisionist was living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, after recording the aforesaid finding, declined to grant maintenance to the revisionist on the ground that she was living separately from her husband without sufficient reason. The Trial Court further observed that in view of the said finding, there was no necessity to decide Points for Determination Nos. 3 and 4, which were related to the questions as to whether the revisionist was unable to maintain herself and whether opposite party no. 2, despite having sufficient means, had neglected or refused to maintain her. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and order suffers from no illegality or infirmity and the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, we find that although the observation of the Trial Court that the revisionist was living separately from her husband, opposite party no. 2, without any sufficient reason may disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation as to why the Trial Court did not record its findings on Points for Determination Nos. 3 & 4. It is trite law that where a Court, after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, proceeds to finally adjudicate the matter, it is incumbent upon the Court to record its findings on each and every issue or point for determination arising for consideration. The Court cannot dispense with the determination of the CRLR No. 7843 of 2025 2 remaining points merely because one of the points has been decided against a party, particularly when such points constitute independent matters requiring adjudication. Failure to record findings on each and every point for determination renders the judgment legally unsustainable. In the present case, the Trial Court, having framed Points for Determination Nos. 3 and 4, was required to record its findings thereon. The said points related to the revisionist's inability to maintain herself and the alleged neglect or refusal on the part of opposite party no. 2 to maintain her despite having sufficient means. These questions were not adjudicated by the Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision succeeds and is, hereby, allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Maintenance Case No. 1251 of 2021, Sadhana Devi v. Rajkumar is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 8. The Trial Court is directed to decide the matter afresh and record a clear and specific finding on each and every point for determination separately, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present judgment are confined to the adjudication of the present revision and shall not come in the way of the Trial Court while deciding the matter afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. September 8, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 7843 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad