HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6796 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Revisionist Sandhya Singh has approached this Court by means of the instant criminal revision challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Case No. 986 of 2022, whereby the Trial Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist and two others and directed O.P. No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to applicant No. 2, who is the son of O.P. No. 2 and the revisionist. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant criminal revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law and is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further contended that the impugned order suffers from manifest error and illegality apparent on the face of the record. A prayer has, accordingly, been made for allowing the instant criminal revision and setting aside the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Trial Court has allowed the claim for maintenance made on behalf of the son of the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajeet Shukla, Neelam Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vivek Kumar Singh Sandhya Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) revisionist and O.P. No. 2. The Trial Court has observed that the daughter of the revisionist and O.P. No. 2, i.e. applicant No. 2, had attained the age of majority and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance. It has further been observed that the revisionist was also not entitled to maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is living separately from her husband on account of his illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), but the Trial Court has failed to consider the said allegation and has held that the revisionist is living separately without sufficient cause. It is further submitted that, in the operative portion of the impugned order, there is no specific finding regarding the claim of the revisionist and her daughter, which reflects that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a cursory manner. In the aforesaid conspectus, it is submitted that the instant criminal revision may be allowed by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the instant criminal revision and submitted that the Trial Court has rightly considered the allegation made by the revisionist that O.P. No. 2 is having an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). However, no notice was issued to the said person against whom such allegation was made. It is submitted that such allegation could not have been adjudicated upon without affording an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom the allegation to be a co-adulterer was made. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has further submitted that the allegation of adultery is merely an allegation and cannot be accepted or acted upon without providing an opportunity to the alleged co-adulterer to defend herself, particularly when such allegation affects her reputation and character. It is thus contended that, for the aforesaid reasons, the instant criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 7. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of record, it is evident that when the impugned order was passed, the daughter of revisionist and O.P. No. 2 has attained the age of majority, so her right of maintenance from O.P. No. 2 is not made out. The revisionist has made the allegation that O.P. no. 2 (husband) is living in adultery with his Bhabhi but the Bhabhi of O.P. No. 2 has not been given an opportunity to CRLR No. 6796 of 2025 2 defend herself and without any opportunity of hearing, the Court can not hold such a lady for having such allegation. Accordingly, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the findings of trial court in this regard. So far as the question of rejection of claim of revisionist's daughter in operative portion is concerned while determining the point of maintenance of point No. 5, the trial court has clearly observed that the revisionist and her daughter (the applicant no. 2) is not entitled to any maintenance. Only reason of specific rejection of claim of maintenance of revisionist and her daughter applicant No. 2, the illegality in the impugned order can not be assessed. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid conspectus, we do not find any illegality to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. Accordingly, it is dismissed. September 8, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 6796 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad