Dismissed¶¶28

Smt Shivlochna v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2025CRLR/1131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. — sub-section (4) — wife living separately without sufficient reason not entitled to maintenance allowance — maintenance application rejected by Family Court, Fatehpur upheld — OPW-4 (father's) testimony — trial court findings correct, no perversity — criminal revision dismissed — Allahabad High Court — CRLR No. 1131 of 2024 — Madan Pal Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

Under sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., no wife is entitled to receive an allowance of maintenance, whether interim or final, if she is living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason; in the instant case the revisionist is living separately from her husband. ¶¶23

Smt Shivlochna Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.12.2023 of the Family Court, Fatehpur rejecting the revisionist's application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was against fact and law and deserved to be set aside. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The findings of fact recorded by the trial court with regard to the separate living of the revisionist from her husband without sufficient cause are correct; no illegality or perversity has been detected in them, and therefore they do not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

¶¶23

Key takeaways

From the testimony of OPW-4, the father of the revisionist, it transpires that the revisionist is a peevish and quarrelsome lady and is voluntarily living separately from her husband without any reason.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 1131 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Madan Pal Singh, J.; decided September 12, 2025). Revision by Smt. Shivlochna against the order dated 06.12.2023 of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, in Case No. 52 of 2019 (Smt. Shivlochna Vs. Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi), rejecting her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on the examination-in-chief of OPW-4, the revisionist's father (paragraph 28 of the trial court judgment), and on sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held that a wife living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason is not entitled to an allowance of maintenance, interim or final; that the revisionist was voluntarily living separately without reason; and that the trial court's findings of fact were correct, free from illegality or perversity, and warranted no interference. Criminal revision dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1131 of 2024

Smt Shivlochna

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶6

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Manvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Manvendra Singh
Court No.- 91

¶7

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶9

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, in Case No. 52 of 2019 (Smt. Shivlochna Vs. Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Hussainganj, District Fatehpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and due to neglect on the part of opposite party no.2, she is living separately. Learned counsel further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has committed marpeet with the revisionist and in this regard a NCR was also registered against the opposite party no.2 and on account of that very reason, she is living separately. He next submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the revisionist has illicit relations with one Gore Lal and without considering all these aspects of the matter, the learned trial court has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is against the fact and law, as such, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-opposite party no.1 have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and invited the attention of the

¶12

CRLR No. 1131 of 2024

¶13

¶14

court towards of paragraph no.28 of the judgment of the trial court, in which, OPW-4 the father of the revisionist in his examination-in-chief has stated as follows:

¶15

मौिखक साक्षी OPW4, जो प्रािथनी का िपता है, ने अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में िवपक्षी के कथनों का समथर्न करते हुए कहा है िक उसकी पुत्री िशवलोचना अपनी िजद व गलती के कारण उसके दामाद (िवपक्षी) व उसके पिरवार वालों को प्रतािड़त करती रही है जबिक िवपक्षी व उसके पिरवार वालों द्वारा आज तक उससे अितिरक्त दहेज की माँग नहीं की गयी और न ही िवपक्षी दुष्चिरत्र व नशेबाज है और न ही उसके अन्य मिहला से कोई अवैध संबंध है। OPW4 ने कहा है िक उसकी पुत्री िशवलोचना स्वयं एक स्वच्छंद िवचारधारा की व झगड़ालू मिहला है और उसने अपने भरण-पोषण प्राथर्नापत्र में जो आरोप िवपक्षी के िवरुद्ध लगाये हैं वह झूठे एवं मनगढ़ंत हैं। िवपक्षी एक नेक इंसान है और प्रािथनी को पूवर् की भांित रखने को तैयार है परन्तु उसकी पुत्री िशवलोचना अपने गलत रवैये का कारण स्वयं नहीं जा रही है और गलत आधार पर यह मुकदमा योिजत िकया है।

¶16

From the testimony of OPW-4, who is the father of the revisionist, it transpires that the revisionist is a peevish and quarrelsome lady and she is voluntarily living separately from her husband without any reason.

¶17

In this case, while making any observation on the merits of the case, the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is necessary to have a glance, which is reproduced as below:

¶18

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

"(1). ...........

(2) . ...........

(3). ............

(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."

¶23

The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself speaks that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance of maintenance either interim or finally, who is living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, here in the instant case the revisionist is living separately

¶24

CRLR No. 1131 of 2024

¶25

¶26

from her husband, this fact also finds support from the examination-in-chief of OPW-4, who is the father of the revisionist and the trial court has also given its finding in respect of separate living of the revisionist and rejected the application of the revisionist moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶27

In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has already recorded the findings of fact with regard to the separate living of the revisionist from her husband without sufficient cause and rejected her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the findings recorded by the trial court are correct and no illegality or perversity has been detected in it, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merit is dismissed .

¶29

September 12, 2025 Prajapati RK

¶30

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Shivlochna v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shivlochna v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases