SEEMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5341 of 2025

Seema
                                                              .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)              :    Chandra Prakash Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :    G.A., Rajnish Kumar Shahi

Court No. - 87
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash Misra, learned counsel for revisionist, Mr.
Rajnish Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned AGA
representing State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

2. Revisionist Seema has approached this Court by means of present
criminal revision assailing the impugned judgment and order dated
21.06.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar at
Padrauna (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Criminal Misc. Case No.
1173 of 2022, CNR No. UPKU020018842022 (Seema Vs. Mukesh Soni)
filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the trial court has rejected the claim
of maintenance of revisionist holding that the revisionist is not legally
wedded wife of opposite party no. 2.

3. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has been
filed on the ground that the impugned order is illegal, unjust and passed in
violation of principle of natural justice and a prayer for allowing the present
criminal revision and setting aside the impugned judgment and order has
been made.

4. Apart from aforesaid grounds so many things has been mentioned as
grounds for revision but such things are not relevant for deciding the
revision. Accordingly those factual assertion are not being discussed here.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court has rejected
the claim for maintenance only on the ground that the revisionist was
previously married to another person and her previous marriage was
                                                          CRLR No. 5341 of 2025
                                2


subsisting. On the aforesaid premise, the trial court has held that the
relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 cannot be
regarded as a valid marriage so the revisionist is not entitled to claim
maintenance from opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that the
findings recorded by the trial court are contradictory one. On the one hand,
the trial court has held that the revisionist is not the legally wedded wife of
opposite party no. 2, while on the other hand, it has recorded a finding that
the revisionist is living separately from opposite party no. 2 without any
sufficient reason. It is, thus, contended that, in view of the aforesaid
contradictory findings, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable
in law and is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for revisionist placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Smt. N. Usha Rani and another Vs.
Moodudula Srinivas 2025 INSC 129. Paragraph 15 and 16 of aforesaid
judgment specifically relied upon by learned counsel for revisionist which
are reproduced hereunder:-

     "15. This divergence in judicial opinion has been noted by the
     Court in Chanmuniya (supra) and therefore the question of
     whether women in live-in relationships can claim maintenance
     u/s 125 CrPC was referred to a larger bench. The discussion, to
     the extent relevant, is reproduced below:

           "24. Thus, in those cases where a man, who lived with
           a woman for a long time and even though they may
           not have undergone legal necessities of a valid
           marriage, should be made liable to pay the woman
           maintenance if he deserts her. The man should not be
           allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by
           enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage
           without undertaking the duties and obligations. Any
           other interpretation would lead the woman to
           vagrancy and destitution, which the provision of
           maintenance in Section 125 is meant to prevent.

           25. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice
           System, headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath, in its
           Report of 2003 opined that evidence regarding a man
                                                      CRLR No. 5341 of 2025
                           3


     and woman living together for a reasonably long
     period should be sufficient to draw the presumption
     that the marriage was performed according to the
     customary rites of the parties. Thus, it recommended
     that the word "wife" in Section 125 CrPC should be
     amended to include a woman who was living with the
     man like his wife for a reasonably long period…

     42. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive
     interpretation should be given to the term "wife" to
     include even those cases where a man and woman
     have been living together as husband and wife for a
     reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of
     marriage should not be a precondition for
     maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil
     the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision
     of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe
     that such an interpretation would be a just application
     of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our
     Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the
     dignity of the individual."

16. Most recently, in Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and
Another (2014) 1 SCC 188, this Court granted maintenance to a
second wife who was kept in the dark about her husband's first
subsisting marriage. The Court noted:

     "13.3. Thirdly, in such cases, purposive interpretation
     needs to be given to the provisions of Section
     125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a
     destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this
     provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised
     sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve
     "social justice" which is the constitutional vision,
     enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
     The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly
     signals that we have chosen the democratic path under
     the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all
     its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It
                                                          CRLR No. 5341 of 2025
                                 4


           specifically highlights achieving their social justice.
           Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts
           to advance the cause of social justice. While giving
           interpretation to a particular provision, the court is
           supposed to bridge the gap between the law and
           society."

7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist fairly
admitted that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no. 2 was
her second marriage. It was further submitted that the revisionist had
separated from her first husband by mutual consent and a memo in this
regard had been arrived at between the revisionist and her first husband so
the first marriage of the revisionist does not subsist, and her marriage with
opposite party no. 2 cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that it was a
second marriage. It is, thus, contended that, in view of above, the present
criminal revision deserves to be allowed by this Court and the impugned
judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A., as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf
of opposite party no. 2, vehemently opposed the present criminal revision
and submitted that it is an admitted position that the revisionist had earlier
married another person and her earlier marriage was never dissolved by a
competent court of law. It is further submitted that no decree of divorce was
obtained by the revisionist in respect of her first marriage. Learned counsel
further submits that, under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
if a Hindu, during the subsistence of his or her earlier marriage, contracts a
second marriage without obtaining a decree of divorce from the competent
court, such subsequent marriage is void in view of Section 11 read with
Section 5(i) of the said Act. Accordingly, the marriage of the revisionist with
opposite party no. 2 is a void marriage, and no legal right to either spouse of
void marriage takes birth against each other. So far as the law referred by
learned counsel for the revisionist is concerned, it is submitted that
paragraphs 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment nowhere provides that a lady
whose earlier marriage is subsisting married with another person and
claimed maintenance from her second husband may be regarded.

9. When confronted with above learned counsel fore revisionist could not
overcome the same.
                                                                                             CRLR No. 5341 of 2025
                                                                    5


                                    10. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
                                    upon perusal of the record, we are of the considered view that, though the
                                    revisionist had already married with another person and her earlier marriage
                                    subsists it cannot be said that she was under any pretense regarding her
                                    marital status. It is trite law that no person can be permitted to take
                                    advantage of his or her own fault. In the present case, it was the revisionist
                                    who, despite the subsistence of her earlier marriage, choose to marry and
                                    make a relationship with opposite party no. 2 so she must face its result on
                                    her own. In such circumstances, we do not find any good or sufficient
                                    ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment and order.

                                    11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is
                                    hereby dismissed.

                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Arti
                                                                                     (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ARTI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad