Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121518 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2859 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Komal Prasad Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and to set aside the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Firozabad by which the application 13A under Section 144(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023 dated 26.11.2024 filed by the revisionist in Criminal Case No.829 of 2024 (Smt. Manju and another vs. Shivam) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Uttar, District Firozabad. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party nos.2 & 3 are wife and minor daughter of the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 has filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court for maintenance in which he filed application u/s 144(4) B.N.S.S. (old Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.) and contended that the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist are living separate from each other with mutual consent and she received Rs.3,50,000/- as lump sum amount for maintenance of herself and her minor daughter even though she filed an application for maintenance, therefore, he requested the learned trial court to dismiss the application u/s 144 B.N.S.S. (u/s 125 Cr.P.C.) on the ground that wife is living separate from him with mutual consent. The learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that opposite party no.2 has objected about the contents of the application filed by the revisionist that no evidence has been adduced on either part and at that stage it was not possible to decide the issue as to whether both of them were living separate with mutual consent or not, which is illegal since there is an affidavit containing the contents of agreement between both of them. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of records and the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by learned trial court on application paper no.13 A to dismiss the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she is living separate from him with mutual consent and received Rs.3,50,000/- as lump sum amount for maintenance, it appears that in this regard, he has filed a notarial affidavit on stamp paper but the contents of that affidavit has been denied by the opposite party no.2/wife. Photocopy of receipt has also been filed regarding money but there is no any signature of the opposite party no.2 on the receipt, therefore, the aforesaid documents/papers are not admissible in the evidence. Till now there is no any other material or evidence adduced on the part of the revisionist or the opposite party no.2, therefore, the learned trial court cannot be said to be able to decide the issue as to whether wife/opposite party no.2 is living separate from him with mutual consent and has received Rs.3,50,000/- as maintenance. The proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. are still pending before the learned trial court that will be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties. The rejection of application paper no.13 A by the learned trial court at this stage cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad