Dismissed

Sarvesh Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2025CRLR/5804/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged ex-parte maintenance rejection by Family Court. High Court upheld the finding that she was living in adultery under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., holding revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings of fact absent perversity.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5804 of 2024

¶3

Sarvesh Kumari

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Manoj Kumar, Tabassum Bano	Manoj Kumar	Mishra,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 89

¶7

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶8

List has been revised.

¶9

None present for the opposite party no.2.

¶10

Heard Ms. Tabassum Bano, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶11

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Bareilly, in Maintenance Case No. 1842 of 2019 (Smt. Sarvesh Kumari and two others Vs. Prem Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police StationVisharatganj, District - Bareilly, whereby the trial court while ex-parte allowing the instant application has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the opposite party no.3, i.e. total Rs.3,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application.

¶12

The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party no.2 is living with some other lady, namely, Pooja that is why she is living separately but this fact was not considered by the trial court and arbitrarily rejected the claim of maintenance of the present revisionist.

¶13

From the perusal of the judgment, it reflects that at page nos. 11 and 12 of the judgment the trial court has categorically recorded its finding that the revisionist is living in adultery. It further reflects that before the trial court the opposite party no.2 had lodged a NCR against the present revisionist

¶14

CRLR No. 5804 of 2024

¶15

¶16

regarding some bad conduct of the revisionist. In the meanwhile, the revisionist apologies her mistake and the matter was compromised between the parties and the present revisionist has started living again with the opposite party no.2 but thereafter she again eloped with one Avinash along with her two minor children. Some photographs have also been annexed by the opposite party no.2 in which the revisionist was seen in obscene state. These photographs were sent by the Avinash to the cell phone of the opposite party no.2 through whats-app only to insult/demoralize him in the society and all these facts were well discussed by the trial court while passing the impugned order. These photographs were developed by the Photographer, Soori Lab, Rajendra Nagar from the whats-app of the opposite party no.2. Apart from these photographs, mobile chats were also proved by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist regarding living her in adultery.

¶17

Since sufficient evidences were produced before the trial court by the opposite party no.2 with regard to the adultery of the revisionist and on the basis of that very material the trial court had reached at the conclusion that she is living in adultery and accordingly, rejected the claim of maintenance of the present revisionist. Therefore, this Court being the Revisional Court, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also substitute its own finding in place of findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue in question unless the finding is completely perverse and against the facts and law.

¶18

The sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that in case the wife is living in adultery, in that situation, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. For kind convenient sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is being reproduced below:

¶19

"(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."

¶20

In view of the forgoing discussions as well as keeping in view the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Code, it is evident that the present revisionist is living in adultery with one Avinash, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the trial court regarding adultery of the revisionist cannot be said to be illegal, which are the findings of fact based on cogent evidence adduced by the parties and same does not warrant any interference

¶21

CRLR No. 5804 of 2024

¶22

¶23

by this Court.

¶24

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

¶25

October 8, 2025 Prajapati RK

¶26

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶27

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

Sarvesh Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sarvesh Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases