Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146863 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2066 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt Riddhi Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ritesh Singh,Suresh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishal Pandey Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar. By the said order dated 21.03.2024, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has dismissed the application for grant of maintenance on the ground that the revisionist is graduate and is qualified and therefore, is capable of earning her livelihood. Further, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has drawn a presumption that the revisionist has voluntarily left the matrimonial house and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance as provided under the law. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that though, the revisionist is a qualified and educated lady having graduation degree and preparing for Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and B.Ed examinations, but a mere preparation for a particular job does not entitle any person that, he or she would definitely get that job. It is only on the basis of merit and competence skills etc. that a person succeeds in the said examinations to get job. However, possession of a degree is a minimum eligibility criteria to appear in a particular examination and that does not entitle him or her to get job on a particular post. Further, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has also noted in the impugned order that the revisionist is still trying to search a job and preparing for Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and B.Ed examinations. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court while passing the impugned order has also referred to Section 125(c) Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under:- "(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance - For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to the applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B - III of the judgment. The aforesaid facts are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case." 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further stated that without considering the evidence on record and each and every aspect of the matter, the application filed by the revisionist has been dismissed, without any reason or logic and the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has stated that the revisionist is a qualified and educated lady and therefore, she is capable of searching job for her and seek employment at any place, as per her eligibility and qualification. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has further stated that an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been moved on behalf of opposite party no.2 and both husband and wife are likely to settle the matter before the Family Court, which may take some time and therefore, the revisionist is not entitled for any maintenance. 7. No other arguments have been advanced on behalf of opposite party no.2. 8. Learned AGA has adopted the same arguments as advanced on behalf of opposite party no.2. 9. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court is based on the fact that the revisionist is an educated lady having graduation degree and also preparing for Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and B.Ed examinations therefore capable of earning her livelihood. Though the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has admitted that it is bounden duty of the husband to take care of wife and children born out of the wedlock, but the mere fact that the revisionist is staying away from the husband, she is not entitled for any maintenance, cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance to the wife. Secondly possession of a degree is not the feature or part of any employment, but only an eligibility to get the said job, hence the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the present revision is liable to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned court to pass an order afresh, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Salim Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad