Husband challenged a Family Court order granting maintenance to his wife and minor son under section 125 Cr.P.C., invoking the bar under section 125(4). The High Court upheld the trial court's factual finding that the wife had not refused cohabitation without sufficient cause and found no illegality or perversity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5547
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 474 of 2024
Revisionist :- Siraj Ahamad Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vikrant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kant Yadav
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
litigation which is running between the parties. The revisionist has filed a suit for reconciliation of conjugal right under Islamic law before competent court but even that respondent no. 2 is not ready to live with him. She has also kept minor son of the revisionist with her forcefully.
"(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."
party Siraj Ahmad filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before Principal Judge before Family Court, Rampur with averment that marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with opposite party Siraj Ahmad on 27.12.2020. Her father had given sufficient gifts and dowry in the marriage and spent around Rs. 10 lakhs. Applicant no. 1 was sent off to the place of her in-laws after marriage where she came to know that her husband and in-laws were greedy people. They started demand Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and four wheeler from her, they used to taunt and tease her for bringing lesser dowry. Her Dever (brother-in-law) having evil eye on her and on 13.4.2022 at around 4 P.M. on finding her alone in the house, did obscene act with her. She told this incident to her husband but instead taking heed to her complaint, he abused her and she was eventually turned out from matrimonial home, due to non fulfillment of additional dowry. She came to her parental house anyhow along with her minor son Shazan.
was turned out of her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and she has to took shelter at her parental place. She is six sibling in toto. She has completed intermediate in the year 2016. Her father bears expenses of witness and her minor son. Her husband has not taken care of her after departure from the place of her husband. Her son is symbol of lovely relations of the parties. She has problem with family members of her husband. She can reside with her husband separately. Her mother-in-law remain sick. She does not operate mobile. She does not use whatsapp. She is not having mobile phone. She will ready to live with her husband if he keeps her separately from her family.
has refused to live with opposite party without sufficient cause.
Order Date :- 10.1.2025/SY
Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife had refused to live with the husband without sufficient cause, barring maintenance under section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
Whether the Family Court's finding awarding maintenance of Rs.10,000 and Rs.5,000 per month was illegal or perverse.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of U.P.
Smt. Shaziya Bee
Mohd. Shazan
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
