The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband seeking to quash maintenance orders, affirming that the issue of the wife living separately for “sufficient cause” had already been established in prior proceedings.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Madan Pal Singh, the court held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s decision to reject the husband’s application under Section 125 (4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Case Background
The revisionist, Manoj Kumar Yadav, and the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Sita, were married on February 5, 2005. Following matrimonial disputes, maintenance orders were passed in favor of the wife on August 31, 2010, and subsequently enhanced on December 17, 2016, under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
The revisionist approached the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lalitpur, in 2023 under Section 125 (4) (5) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside these orders. He contended that his wife was living separately without reasonable cause, was practicing law in Lalitpur with an income of ₹30,000 per month, and had “not fulfilled her marital relations since June 2005.” The Family Court rejected this application on December 18, 2024, prompting the present revision.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionist argued that the trial court failed to consider evidence showing the wife had been living separately since 2005 without sufficient cause. It was further alleged that the wife’s refusal to fulfill marital duties amounted to cruelty, depriving the revisionist of “marital bliss.” The revisionist also cited his acquittal in a Section 498-A I.P.C. case on December 8, 2022, as a ground to set aside the maintenance.
Conversely, the learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that the issue of “separate living” was decided as far back as 2010. They pointed out that the revisionist had not challenged the 2010 order for over 13 years and had even complied with it by paying maintenance. They contended that the repeated litigations between the parties itself constituted a “sufficient cause” for the wife to live separately.
Court’s Analysis
The court scrutinized the findings of the trial court, which had noted that the revisionist’s application was effectively barred by the law of estoppel regarding the 2010 maintenance order. The High Court observed that the revisionist had not leveled any allegations of adultery against the wife.
Regarding the claim of separate living without cause, the court noted:
“After examining the documents submitted by the revisionist, the trial court has found that none of documents indicate that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist without any reasonable cause. These documents clearly indicate that there is considerable litigation between the parties. Therefore, if the opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist, she must be living separately from the revisionist for sufficient cause.”
The court further emphasized the limitations of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., stating:
“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… this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers.”
Final Decision
Concluding that the revisionist failed to prove the grounds raised for quashing the maintenance orders, the High Court found no merit in the petition.
“Consequently, this Court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court,” the bench remarked while dismissing the criminal revision. No order as to costs was made.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Manoj Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1298 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Date of Order: March 10, 2026
