SMT. MANISHA SHANKHWARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6153 of 2025

Smt. Manisha Shankhwar
                                                           .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)         :   Nikhil Saxena, Rajeev Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      :   Radhey Shyam Yadav, G.A.

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

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed a rejoinder affidavit during
the course of the day, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned
counsel for O.P. No. 2.

3. Perused the record.

4. Revisionist Smt. Manisha Shankhwar has approached this Court by
means of the instant criminal revision assailing the impugned judgment
and order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Case
No. 737/12/2022, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the claim of
maintenance of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while allowing
the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of applicant No. 2, the
minor son of the revisionist and O.P. No. 2, and directing O.P. No. 2 to
pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant criminal revision
has been filed on the grounds that the impugned order is against the
evidence on record and is based on surmises and conjectures. A prayer
has, accordingly, been made for allowing the instant criminal revision and
setting aside the impugned order.
                                                                                  CRLR No. 6153 of 2025
                                              2


6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that when she
reached her matrimonial house at the time of her first Vidai, O.P. No. 2
started quarrelling with her on account of demand of dowry and put
pressure upon her for fulfilment of the said demand. Her marriage was
solemnized in the year 2014. Thereafter, the revisionist was ousted from
her matrimonial house. However, the Trial Court did not consider the
aforesaid facts and rejected the claim of maintenance made by the
revisionist. It is thus contended that, in the aforesaid conspectus, the
instant criminal revision may be allowed by this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2
has vehemently opposed the instant criminal revision. Learned counsel for
O.P. No. 2 has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph No. 10-(ण)
of the impugned judgment and order, which is available at page 16 of the
paper book, wherein the Trial Court has recorded as follows:

"(ण) विपक्षी अपने अभिकथन व बयानों में यह कह कर आया है कि वह प्रार्थिनी व पुत्र को अपने साथ रखने
के लिए तैयार है। इस सम्बंध में यदि हम प्रार्थिनी के बयानों को देखें तो उसने अपनी जिरह के पृ०-3 पर यह
कहा है कि...... यदि शिवेन्द्र न्यायालय में इस बात का शपथ पत्र दे कि मैं न कोई मांग करूं गा, न किसी प्रकार
की मार पीट करूं गा, तब भी मैं शिवेन्द्र के साथ नहीं रहूंगी! इसी क्रम में यह भी कहा है कि...... यदि शिवेन्द्र
मेरी सारी सुख सुविधा का ध्यान रखे, तब भी मैं शिवेन्द्र के साथ नहीं रहूंगी। जिरह के अंत में प्रार्थिनी ने दिया है
कि... शिवेन्द्र मेरा व मेरे बच्चे का कितने भी अच्छे से ख्याल रखे, तब भी मैं उसके साथ नहीं रहूंगी। प्रार्थिनी
की माता पी०डब्लू०-2 ने भी अपने बयानों में पृ०-6 पर यह कहा है कि...... अगर शिवेन्द्र न्यायालय में
लिखकर दे कि वह बेटी को अच्छी तरह से रखेगा, उसकी आवश्यकता पूरी करेगा, दहेज की मांग नहीं करेगा,
मुझे कोई परेशानी नहीं है, लेकिन मेरी लड़की जाने। इसी क्रम में यह भी कहा है कि...... मेरी बेटी ने अपने
बयानों में यह कहा है कि शिवेन्द्र मेरी बेटी को कितनी भी अच्छे से रखे, मेरी बेटी नहीं रहेगी। यह मेरी बेटी की
इच्छा है। अपनी जिरह के अंत में भी इस साक्षी का यही बयान आया है कि...... शिवेन्द्र आज भी अपनी पत्नी
को अपने साथ रखने को तैयार है, लेकिन मेरी बेटी की इच्छा है कि वह जाये, या न जाये। इस प्रकार जहां
प्रार्थिनी ने स्पष्ट रूप से किसी भी दशा में विपक्षी के साथ जाकर दाम्पत्य कर्तव्यों के निर्वहन करने से इन्कार
किया है, वहीं उसकी माता ने भी अपनी पुत्री को भेजने के प्रति अपनी कोई उत्सुकता या गम्भीरता नहीं दर्शायी
है।"


Thus, there is nothing on record to establish that the revisionist is living
separately from O.P. No. 2 for any sufficient or justifiable reason. In the
aforesaid circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of
maintenance made by the revisionist, and the impugned order does not
call for any interference by this Court.
                                                                                          CRLR No. 6153 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the revisionist
                                    could not over come the same.

                                    9. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the record and considered
                                    the submissions advanced by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, this Court
                                    finds that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are borne out from the
                                    record. The Trial Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or
                                    perversity in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this
                                    Court. The instant criminal revision has no force and is liable to be
                                    dismissed as being devoid of merit.

                                    10. Accordingly, it is dismissed.



                                                                                   (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    RPD




Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad