HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4102 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist to set aside/quash the judgment and order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Etawah in Criminal Misc. Case No. 515 of 2022 (Smt. Shraddha vs. Satish Kumar), whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist on 30.06.2020. Just after ten months of marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Consequently, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case No. 515 of 2022 (Smt. Shraddha vs. Satish Kumar). After hearing the parties and evidence was led, the trial court has passed the impugned order. Hence the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the learned trial court has rejected the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the basis of an agreement 26 Kha/4 to 26 kha/6 which was alleged to be prepared on 25.01.2021 and notarized on 28.01.2021 produced by opposite party no.2 before the trial court but same was disputed by the revisionist. It is also submitted that the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 01.08.2022 and on the basis of a forged agreement made by the husband in the year 2021, the trial court has rejected the application, which is also supported by an affidavit sworn by the revisionist herself. Even otherwise, the trial court has not considered the veracity or other of such agreement which is alleged to have entered into between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 in the year 2021, while passing the impugned judgment. The trial court has also not afforded any Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Shraddha .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) opportunity of hearing to the revisionist to rebut the said forged agreement which was prepared by opposite party no.2 himself. 5. On the other hand initially learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have opposed the present criminal revision but they could not dispute that the trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, has not examined the authenticity of the agreement so produced by opposite party no.2 before the trial court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties and of learned AGA and perused the impugned judgment, it transpires from the record that the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 01.08.2022 wherein several allegations have been made by the revisionist against opposite party no.2. In her cross-examination itself, the revisionist has specifically stated that when she has filed the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband i.e. opposite party no.2, there was no occasion for her to enter into an alleged agreement favouring the opposite party no.2. On one hand she entered into the alleged agreement with opposite party no.2 and on the other hand she was contesting the said agreement in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. The judgment passed by the learned trial court is totally based on the agreement while ignoring the evidence which was adduced by the revisionist before the trial court. While passing the impugned judgment, the trial court should have examined the fact whether the alleged agreement was correct or not and if it is accepted that the said agreement is true, when the trial court should have examined as to whether in the alleged agreement, the revisionist had entered into by the revisionist herself by her own free will. Even otherwise, the trial court has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to her to rebut the same. It is shocking state of affairs that the wife who is contesting the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance would have entered into an agreement which would favour the husband. 8. On the above premise, this Court is of the view that the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has committed gross error in rejecting the instant application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside. According the impugned judgment 9.05.2024 is set aisde. 9. The instant matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the same afresh. It is therefore, provided that the Princpal Judge shall consider and decide the instant application afresh, in accordance with law and the observations made above, by means of a reasond and speaking order, preferably within a period two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment. CRLR No. 4102 of 2024 2 10. With the observation made above, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. September 19, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 4102 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad