RAMRAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                                                                             A.F.R.

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5837 of 2025

Ramraj
                                                              .....Revisionist(s)
                                     Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Saurabh Yadav, Suraj Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kailash Choudhary,                     Nitesh
                                Kumar Chaudhari

Court No. - 88
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of revisionist, is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Yadav, the learned counsel for revisionist, Mr.
Gyanendra Singh, the learned AGA representing State-opposite party no. 1
and Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel representing opposite party no.
2 and perused the record.

3. The present revision has been preferred by revisionist Ramraj challenging
the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2025 passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as trial
court) in Case No. 39/2021, under section 125 Cr.P.C. (Kumari Shushila Vs.
Ramraj) wherein the trial court partially allowed the application of opposite
party no. 2/the complainant under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the revisionist
was ordered to pay Rs. 4,000/- monthly as maintenance to opposite party no.
2 the wife of revisionist.

4. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has been
filed on the grounds that the impugned order has manifest error of law. It is
absolutely illegal, unjust, improper, arbitrary against the evidence on record,
hence the same is liable to be set aside by this Court invoking the revisional
jurisdiction.

5. To elaborate his submission learned counsel appearing on behalf of
                                                                 CRLR No. 5837 of 2025
                                    2


revisionist urged that the revisionist has claimed in his objection that the
opposite party no. 2 is leading unchastity life but the trial court failed to
frame any issue in this regard and consequently no finding in this record has
been recorded by the trial court and it is thus contended that the impunged
order is not sustainable in law. In support of his submission he placed
reliance upon paragraph 8 and 10 of the written statement which occurs at
page 90 of the paper book. The relevant paragraph nos. 8 and 10 of the
aforesaid writtten statement are quoted here under:-

     "8. यह कि याची का अश्वनी कुमार पुत्र अज्ञात ग्राम व पोस्ट-बरईपार, हाल मुकाम
     नहर चौराहा, डोहरिया कला, पोस्ट-मिनवा, थाना-सहजनवाँ, जनपद-गोरखपुर के
     साथ अनैतिक सम्बन्ध था जिसके सम्बन्ध में अश्वनी कुमार की पत्नी मीना देवी ने
     दिनांक 27-12-2020 को थानाध्यक्ष सहजनवों, गोरखपुर को एक शिकायती
     प्रार्थना पत्र दी थी जिसकी छायाप्रति शपथ पत्र के साथ संलग्न है। जिस पर एनेक्चर
     सं०-1 डाला गया है।


     10- यह कि याची का चाल-चलन ठीक नहीं था इसीलिये वह शपथकर्ता के साथ
     रहकर वैवाहिक जीवन का निर्वाह बखूबी नहीं की और शपथकर्ता को वैवाहिक जीवन
     से वंचित रखी। याची व शपथकर्ता के बीच में कई बार सुलह-समझौता हुआ लेकिन
     याची ने सुलह समझौता का कभी पालन नहीं किया।"

6. Per contra learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party no. 2 submitted that there no issue was framed regarding
chastity of opposite party no. 2. In such circumstances if there any evidence
regarding unchastity or chastity had been adduced, such evidence could not
be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that the parties are bound
to lead evidence confining the issues framed in the matter and submitted that
the revisionist could not show any material irregularity in the impugned
order. The jurisdiction of trial court on the matter is not disputed so this
criminal revision is liable to be set aside and impugned order is liable to be
confirmed.

7. Having heard the submissions urged by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of revisionist regarding fact of unchastity claimed by revisionist and
non framing of issue in this regard is clearly borne out from the record.
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. entitles the wife, children and parents having no
sufficient means of maintenance to get maintenance from husband, parents
                                                           CRLR No. 5837 of 2025
                                 3


or children as the case may be, having sufficient means to maintain his wife,
his/her parents or children as the case may be. In addition to that the wife has
to qualify certain additional qualifications to get maintenance from her
husband. Section 125 Cr.P.C. reproduced herein under:-

     " 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.


     (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to
     maintain

     (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

     (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or
     not, unable to maintain itself, or

     (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married
     daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by
     reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to
     maintain itself, or

     (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself.

     a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or
     refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the
     maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such
     monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and 10 pay the same
     to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

     Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor
     female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance,
     until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that
     the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not
     possessed of sufficient means.

     [Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency
     of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the
     maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a
     monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or
     such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding
                                                    CRLR No. 5837 of 2025
                           4


which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same
to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for
the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the
second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within
sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application
to such person.)


Explanation: For the purposes of this chapter,-


(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the
Indian Majority Act 1875 is deemed not to have attained his
majority;


(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has
obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.


(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from
the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the
application for maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.]


(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to
comply with the order, any Magistrate may, for every breach of
the order, Issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the
manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such
person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for
the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the
execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month or until payment if sooner made;

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any
amount due under this section unless application be made to the
Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the
                                                            CRLR No. 5837 of 2025
                                 5


     date on which it became due:

     Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on
     condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him,
     such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by
     her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding
     such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

     Explanation. If a husband has contracted marriage with another
     woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just
     ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.


     (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the
     maintenance 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.


     (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been
     made under this section is living in adultery, or that without
     sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they
     are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall
     cancel the order"

8. Due to existence of Clause 4 to section 125 of Cr.P.C. if wife leads her
life in adulatory she cannot claim any maintenance from her husband
meaning thereby if specific pleading in this regard is made by husband i.e.
crucial point which must be determined prior to order of payment of any
maintenance. It is apparent from perusal of written statement of revisionist
occurred on page 90 of paper book that the revisionist has placed specific
versions disclosing the name and address of co-adulterer. Though the
revisionist is defendant/opposite party before the trial court and the case was
filed by opposite party no. 2. Though the provision under section 125
Cr.P.C. is a part of criminal proceeding but when such proceeding is
initiated the provisions of civil procedure code applies. In Vijay Kumar
Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2004) 4 SCC 468 and Savitri Vs. Govind Singh
                                                           CRLR No. 5837 of 2025
                                 6


Rawat (1985) 4 SCC 337 it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the
jurisdiction exercised by Magistrate under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. is not strictly
criminal in nature and that proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. are
essentially civil in nature. In Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and Another Vs.
Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and Another (2015) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 385 the Apex Court has held that every final order under section 125
Cr.P.C. and other sections referred to in sub-section (c) of Section 354 must
contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for
such decision. In other words, Section 125 and Section 354(6) must be read
together. In Shailesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another order
dated 14th November, 2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court it
is observed that several judgments passed by the learned Trial Court have
been decided without framing any points for determination. A perusal of the
record further shows that the trial court decided the section 125 Cr.P.C.
application without framing any points for determination, which is
mandatory as per Section 354(6) Cr.P.C. This provision requires that every
order under section 117 or sub-section (2) of Section 138, and every final
order made under Section 125, Section 145, or Section 147, shall contain the
point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for
the decision. It is clarified that in the absence of framing any points for
determination, it is difficult to ascertain the basis on which the Trial Court
passed the order or awarded the maintenance amount.

9. At the stage of framing of points for determination the trial court should
be very cautious while considering the provisions contained under section
125 of Cr.P.C. Living in adultery constitutes a statutory Bar to the
entitlement of a wife to get maintenance meaning thereby it is the legal
requirements that the petition of wife in this regard must contained the
pleading that the she is not living in adultery in any manner whatsoever.

10. In view of above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that
although no assertion regarding chastity of opposite party no. 2 was present
in petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. but the allegation of unchastity of
opposite party no. 2 has been made in written statement filed by revisionist
before the trial court. But the trial court did not frame any point for
determination in this regard. Consequently no finding on that point could be
given by the trial court which causes serious injustice to the revisionist in the
                                                                                              CRLR No. 5837 of 2025
                                                                    7


                                    matter.

                                    11. In view of above, the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2025
                                    passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case No.
                                    39/2021, under section 125 Cr.P.C. suffers from material irregularities,
                                    therefore, the same is liable to be set aside invoking its revisionist
                                    jurisdiction and present criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

                                    12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby allowed. The
                                    Judgment and order dated 27.06.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge,
                                    Family Court, Gorakhpur is hereby set aside.

                                    13. The Trial Court is directed to frame a specific point for determination
                                    regarding unchastity of opposite party no. 2 and, thereafter, after affording
                                    adequate opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the said issue, if
                                    court requires necessary, to pass fresh order/judgment in accordance with
                                    law, expeditiously and without causing any undue delay.



                                                                                      (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
                                    April 27, 2026
                                    Arti




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