SANDHYA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6796 of 2025

Sandhya Singh
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)           :   Ajeet Shukla, Neelam Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :   G.A., Vivek Kumar Singh

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

1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
O.P. No. 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Revisionist Sandhya Singh has approached this Court by means of the
instant criminal revision challenging the impugned judgment and order
dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Case No. 986 of
2022, whereby the Trial Court partly allowed the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist and two others and directed
O.P. No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to
applicant No. 2, who is the son of O.P. No. 2 and the revisionist.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant criminal revision
has been filed on the grounds that the impugned judgment and order is
bad in law and is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It
is further contended that the impugned order suffers from manifest error
and illegality apparent on the face of the record. A prayer has,
accordingly, been made for allowing the instant criminal revision and
setting aside the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Trial Court
has allowed the claim for maintenance made on behalf of the son of the
                                                        CRLR No. 6796 of 2025
                               2


revisionist and O.P. No. 2. The Trial Court has observed that the daughter
of the revisionist and O.P. No. 2, i.e. applicant No. 2, had attained the age
of majority and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance. It has further
been observed that the revisionist was also not entitled to maintenance.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is
living separately from her husband on account of his illicit relationship
with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), but the Trial Court has failed to consider
the said allegation and has held that the revisionist is living separately
without sufficient cause. It is further submitted that, in the operative
portion of the impugned order, there is no specific finding regarding the
claim of the revisionist and her daughter, which reflects that the Trial
Court has passed the impugned order in a cursory manner. In the
aforesaid conspectus, it is submitted that the instant criminal revision may
be allowed by this 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 and
submitted that the Trial Court has rightly considered the allegation made
by the revisionist that O.P. No. 2 is having an illicit relationship with his
sister-in-law (Bhabhi). However, no notice was issued to the said person
against whom such allegation was made. It is submitted that such
allegation could not have been adjudicated upon without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the person against whom the allegation to be a
co-adulterer was made.
Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has further submitted that the allegation of
adultery is merely an allegation and cannot be accepted or acted upon
without providing an opportunity to the alleged co-adulterer to defend
herself, particularly when such allegation affects her reputation and
character. It is thus contended that, for the aforesaid reasons, the instant
criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

7. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of record, it is
evident that when the impugned order was passed, the daughter of
revisionist and O.P. No. 2 has attained the age of majority, so her right of
maintenance from O.P. No. 2 is not made out. The revisionist has made
the allegation that O.P. no. 2 (husband) is living in adultery with his
Bhabhi but the Bhabhi of O.P. No. 2 has not been given an opportunity to
                                                                                               CRLR No. 6796 of 2025
                                                                     3


                                    defend herself and without any opportunity of hearing, the Court can not
                                    hold such a lady for having such allegation. Accordingly, we do not find
                                    any irregularity or illegality in the findings of trial court in this regard. So
                                    far as the question of rejection of claim of revisionist's daughter in
                                    operative portion is concerned while determining the point of
                                    maintenance of point No. 5, the trial court has clearly observed that the
                                    revisionist and her daughter (the applicant no. 2) is not entitled to any
                                    maintenance. Only reason of specific rejection of claim of maintenance
                                    of revisionist and her daughter applicant No. 2, the illegality in the
                                    impugned order can not be assessed. Accordingly, in view of the
                                    aforesaid conspectus, we do not find any illegality to interfere with the
                                    impugned order.

                                    8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed
                                    being devoid of merit.

                                    9. Accordingly, it is dismissed.



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




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