HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2342 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Achal 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 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 365 of 2018 (Priyanka Maurya and others Vs. Satyendra Kumar Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, whereby the application of the revisionist moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and rejected the interim maintenance claim of the revisionist on the ground that she is living in adultery. The opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to Arshita Singh and Sanni Singh @ Antariksh Singh, both daughters of the revisionist, till they attained the age of majority. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court had reached at the conclusion on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There was no proof of adultery produced by the opposite party no.2 against her and this fact was not considered by the trial court while rejecting the maintenance claim of the revisionist. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 stated that the learned trial court has categorically recorded the findings on the point of adultery in paragraphs nos.21, 22, 23 and 24 of the impugned judgment and at this stage, there is no need to go in detail in the findings recorded by the trial Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rudra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Achal Singh, Chandra Shekhar Kushwaha, G.A. Priyanka Maurya .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) court, again. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned trial court. 6. At page-12 of the judgment there is cross-examination of the opposite party no.2-the husband of the revisionist, in which, he had stated that : "िप्रयंका मौयार् को बाली मौयार् के साथ शरीिरक संबंध बनाते मैंने देखा है, मैने अपने ससुराल में शाम को 6 बजे देखा था। तारीख या िदन याद नहीं है। जब मैं घर गया तो देखा िक कमरे में दोनों एक साथ पड़े हुए है, दरवाजा उठगांया हुआ था। धक्का देने पर खुल गया। बाली मौयार् पैन्ट पहन रहे थे और िप्रयंका भी अपना कपड़ा सुधार रही थी।" 7. At page-13 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court had recorded the finding that when the revisionist was cross-examined by the counsel for the opposite party no.2, she admitted that she is living with one Chandan Nigam. It also reflects that the opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint before the court concerned, in which one Bali Maurya was summoned under Sections 497, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the revisionist was summoned under Section 506 IPC to face trial. 8. Since the adultery of the present revisionist has been proved by her husband before the trial court, as the revisionist has been summoned in the complaint case filed by her husband, apart from this, there is statement of the opposite party no.2-husband of the revisionist, who during the course of cross-examination stated that "I had seen his wife (revisionist) in an objectionable stage with Bali Maurya" and further the revisionist in her cross-examination has stated that she is living with one Chandan Nigam, these are the sufficient reasons before the trial court to arrive at the conclusion that the revisionist is living in adultery, therefore, the findings of adultery recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be incorrect in the eyes of law. 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 CRLR No. 2342 of 2024 2 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." 9. 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 in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent but in the instant case the revisionist is not only living with Bali Maurya as well as Chandan Nigam, and this fact also finds support from the findings of fact recorded by the trial court in paragraphs nos.21,22, 23 and 24 of the impugned judgment, therefore, it is proved that the revisionist is living in adultery and she does not entitled in any manner to get any kind of maintenance from the opposite party no.2. 10. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court with regard to the adultery of the present revisionist is perfectly just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merit is dismissed. September 16, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 2342 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad