The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a wife challenging the rejection of her maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court upheld the findings of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, which observed that the revisionist was living separately from her husband without sufficient reason and had attempted to mislead the court regarding her marital status and identity documents.
Background of the Case
The revisionist approached the High Court under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated October 31, 2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli. The trial court had rejected her application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Rachna Vyas, submitted that the trial court failed to consider the allegations of cruelty made against the husband (Opposite Party No. 2). She argued that the revisionist had sufficient cause for living separately. It was further contended that the trial court misinterpreted a “compromise” entered into between the parties outside the court, which allegedly had “no sanctity in the eyes of law.” The revisionist specifically denied solemnizing a second marriage and argued that the trial court wrongly accepted the evidence adduced by the opposite party.
Conversely, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State supported the impugned judgment. The opposite party contended that the relationship of husband and wife had ceased to exist following a divorce agreement/settlement executed in a Panchayat. It was submitted that the revisionist had remarried another individual two years after the settlement and was not entitled to maintenance.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Madan Pal Singh, after perusing the record, noted that the trial court had rejected the maintenance application primarily on the ground that the revisionist was living separately without sufficient reason and was prima facie living in adultery.
The High Court affirmed the factual findings recorded by the Family Court, which included the following key observations:
- Admission of Financial Incompatibility: The trial court noted that in her cross-examination, the revisionist admitted that “she happily left her matrimonial house and returned to her parental house.” She acknowledged that her family was wealthy while her husband came from a poor family, describing it as an “incompatible relationship.” She admitted that her husband “did not even have enough money to study.”
- Concealment of Facts regarding Adhar Card: The Court observed discrepancies in the revisionist’s identification documents. Her Adhar Card, issued in 2016, originally bore the name of her husband (Opposite Party No. 2). However, in 2017, it was amended to replace the husband’s name with her father’s name. The trial court noted that while filing the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application in 2019, the revisionist enclosed the copy of the old Adhar Card (showing the husband’s name) instead of the amended one. The trial court termed this as “clearly an attempt to mislead the Court.”
- Evidence of Second Marriage: The opposite party produced a voter list issued on January 21, 2019, where the revisionist’s husband was listed as a third party (the alleged second husband). Although the revisionist denied this, the Court noted she took no legal steps to cancel the voter ID or file a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging forgery. Additionally, a certificate from the Village Pradhan was produced, stating that the revisionist was married to the alleged second husband on May 15, 2018.
- No Sufficient Reason for Separate Living: Based on the evidence, the trial court opined that “the allegation made by the revisionist against opposite party no.2 that just after joining the post of Constable in U.P. Police, the opposite party no.2 started beating and abusing the revisionist does not appear to be credible.”
The High Court observed that the trial court had rightly concluded that the revisionist was living separately from the opposite party “upon her own free will.”
Decision
Dismissing the revision petition, Justice Madan Pal Singh held that the trial court’s findings were based on a “true and correct appreciation of evidence” and were neither perverse nor illegal.
The Court observed:
“Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.”
The criminal revision was dismissed without any order as to costs.
