Dismissed¶12

Anita v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2025CRLR/4110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anita v. State of U.P. and Another, Criminal Revision No. 4110 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Coram: Subhash Chandra Sharma, J., decided 29.4.2025. Keywords: section 125 Cr.P.C.; maintenance; wife living separately without reasonable excuse; notary affidavit of marriage with Paras Nath dated 12.12.2018; minor child Deepak; Rs.2000/- maintenance; Family Court No.1 Azamgarh Case No.663 of 2017; order dated 18.5.2024 upheld; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist is living separate from opposite party No.2 without any reasonable excuse. ¶11

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67583

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4110 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Anita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This Crl. Revision has been filed by the revisionist by the revisionist with a prayer to admit and allow the present criminal revision and set aside the order dated 18.5.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1,Azamgarh in Case No.663 of 2017, Police Station Pawai, District Azamgarh.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist is wife of opposite party No.2 Chandra Pratap and marriage was performed in the year 2004. There is a son Deepak born from the wedlock. Due to neglect on the part of opposite party No.2, the revisionist started living separate from him with a minor child and moved an application under section 125 Cr.P.C which was decided by learned trial court on 18.5.2024 by which the claim of the revisionist (the wife) was rejected and Rs.2000/- were fixed as amount of maintenance in favour of minor child Deepak. He has further submitted that a notary affidavit was got prepared by the opposite party No.2 affixing the photograph of the revisionist and some other person namely Paras showing marriage between both of them where she was working as Nurse, is totally false but the learned trial court relied on notary affidavit and held that she was living separate from the husband without any reasonable excuse and rejected her claim.

¶9

Learned learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist-Anita and opposite party No.2- Chandra Pratap were husband and wife. Admittedly, opposite party No.2 Chandra Pratap is an

¶11

illiterate Person and the revisionist was graduate and also worked as an agent in LI.C. She was also working as nurse in Nursing Home of Paras Nath. She entered into marriage with Paras Nath on 12.12.2018 and started living as husband and wife regarding which an affidavit was got prepared before the Notary in which photographs of the revisionist and Paras Nath were affixed and they both signed the affidavit. Though during the course of trial the revisionist identified her photograph with Paras Nath and also admitted her signature but contended that her photograph was affixed on the affidavit by force. She has also contended that marriage agreement was prepared by force but it is to note that the opposite party No.2 is illiterate person and the revisionist is an educated lady and she is graduate. She admitted that she works as Nurse in the Nursing Home of Paras Nath who is her relative. Her son Deepak was also examined before the learned trial court who could also not state clearly that she is living in her Mayaka. It appears that the revisionist is living separate from the opposite party No.2 without any reasonable excuse. In such situation the husband/opposite party No.2 can not be directed to pay the maintenance to the wife. The learned trial court has considered all these facts and rejected the claim of the revisionist-wife while allowing the maintenance in favour of minor child. In this way there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the passed by the learned trial court dated 18.5.2024. This revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.4.2025

¶14

G.S

¶15

Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anita v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita 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