HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7589 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Revisionist Smt. Banti has approached this court by means of present criminal revision assailing the judgement and order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bareilly( herein after referred as Trial Court) in Case No. 464 of 2020 whereby the trial court rejected the claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the present criminal revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed against the material available on record. It is illegal and unjust order. The impugned order has been passed in a very arbitrary manner and a prayer for allowing the criminal revision and setting aside the impugned order has been made. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the trial court wrongly held that the revisionist is living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason. Further, the trial court wrongly held that the revisionist is capable to maintain herself and submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the present criminal revision may be allowed by this Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Niraj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Brijesh Kumar Yadav, G.A. Smt. Banti .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submitted that the trial court has quoted the admission of revisionist which is occurring at page No. 35 of the paper book. In which she has admitted that her parents took her from her matrimonial house on her own will. If the O.P.No. 2 wants to take her to his house, she would not go with him. She has to take divorce from O.P. No. 2. He has no knowledge of domestic work. It is true to say that she wants to live in Bareilly with her parents and it is also true to say that she does not like to O.P. No. 2. She only wants maintenance from O.P. No. 2, but she does not want to live with O.P. No. 2. Apart from that, in statement of P.W. 2, who is father of the revisionist has deposed that if the O.P. No. 2 starts living separate from his parents then his daughter may live with him and submitted that the revisionist is an anarchist. She has also made other allegations against O.P. No. 2 but could not establish any allegation. From the aforesaid admission of revisionist, it is clear that she wants only to extort money from O.P. No. 2 but she is not willing to perform any duty. It is thus contended that in view of above, the claim of maintenance filed by the revisionist has rightly been rejected with cost by the trial court. The impugned judgement and order warrants no interference by this court. 7. Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of record, the submission urged by learned counsel for O.P.No. 2 clearly borne out from the record. Accordingly, it seems that the present case is an extra ordinary example of misusing of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to extort money from husband without performing any of her duty. Accordingly, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order. The present criminal revision deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 8. Accordingly, it is dismissed. September 30, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 7589 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad