SADHANA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7843 of 2025

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Amit Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Parmeshwar Yadav, Ravi Kumar
                                Yadav, Ravi Prakash Pandey

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

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned A.G.A. representing the State, Ms. Anju Vishwakarma, Advocate
appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and perused the material
available on record.

2. The revisionist Sadhana Devi has approached this Court challenging the
impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Maharajganj (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in
Maintenance Case No. 1251 of 2021, Sadhana Devi v. Rajkumar, whereby
the Trial Court rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by
the revisionist.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has
been filed on the ground that the impugned order has been passed in an
arbitrary manner. It is contended that the impugned order is wholly illegal
and has been passed without application of judicial mind. Accordingly, a
prayer has been made for allowing the present criminal revision and setting
aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Trial Court, while
deciding the Point for Determination No. 1, recorded a finding that opposite
party no. 2 had admitted the solemnization of marriage between the
revisionist and opposite party no. 2 and, accordingly, decided the said point
for determination in favour of the revisionist. However, while deciding Point
for Determination No. 2, the Trial Court erroneously observed that the
revisionist was living separately from her husband without any sufficient or
justifiable reason. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that,
after deciding the aforesaid two points for determination, the Trial Court
                                                          CRLR No. 7843 of 2025
                                2

observed that since Point for Determination No. 2 had been decided against
the revisionist, there was no necessity to determine the remaining points for
determination which were related to the maintenance. It is contended that
such an approach is contrary to the settled principles governing judicial
determination. Trial Court is required to determine each and every point for
determination/issues framed in regular civil proceedings or in summary
proceedings. Failure to determine each and every point for determination,
according to learned counsel, vitiates the proceedings and renders the
impugned order unsustainable in law. It is thus contended that in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal revision deserves to
be allowed and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the revisionist and supported the impugned judgment and order. It is
submitted that, while deciding Point for Determination No. 2, the Trial Court
noticed that the revisionist's sister, in her statement recorded on paper no.
58ka/1 had stated that the revisionist was living happily at her parental house
(Maika). On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the Trial Court recorded a
finding that the revisionist was living separately from her husband without
any sufficient reason. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, after
recording the aforesaid finding, declined to grant maintenance to the
revisionist on the ground that she was living separately from her husband
without sufficient reason. The Trial Court further observed that in view of
the said finding, there was no necessity to decide Points for Determination
Nos. 3 and 4, which were related to the questions as to whether the
revisionist was unable to maintain herself and whether opposite party no. 2,
despite having sufficient means, had neglected or refused to maintain her. It
is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and order suffers from
no illegality or infirmity and the present criminal revision, being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, we
find that although the observation of the Trial Court that the revisionist was
living separately from her husband, opposite party no. 2, without any
sufficient reason may disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her
husband, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has failed to offer any
satisfactory explanation as to why the Trial Court did not record its findings
on Points for Determination Nos. 3 & 4. It is trite law that where a Court,
after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, proceeds to
finally adjudicate the matter, it is incumbent upon the Court to record its
findings on each and every issue or point for determination arising for
consideration. The Court cannot dispense with the determination of the
                                                                                               CRLR No. 7843 of 2025
                                                                     3

                                    remaining points merely because one of the points has been decided against
                                    a party, particularly when such points constitute independent matters
                                    requiring adjudication. Failure to record findings on each and every point for
                                    determination renders the judgment legally unsustainable. In the present
                                    case, the Trial Court, having framed Points for Determination Nos. 3 and 4,
                                    was required to record its findings thereon. The said points related to the
                                    revisionist's inability to maintain herself and the alleged neglect or refusal on
                                    the part of opposite party no. 2 to maintain her despite having sufficient
                                    means. These questions were not adjudicated by the Trial Court. Therefore,
                                    the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law.

                                    7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision succeeds and is, hereby,
                                    allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by
                                    the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Maintenance Case No.
                                    1251 of 2021, Sadhana Devi v. Rajkumar is hereby set aside. The matter is
                                    remitted to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

                                    8. The Trial Court is directed to decide the matter afresh and record a clear
                                    and specific finding on each and every point for determination separately,
                                    after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

                                    9. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present
                                    judgment are confined to the adjudication of the present revision and shall
                                    not come in the way of the Trial Court while deciding the matter afresh on
                                    its own merits in accordance with law.
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Brijesh Maurya

                                                                                       (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad