The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, has dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by a woman seeking maintenance from her husband, affirming that a wife living separately from her husband without any sufficient or reasonable cause and who is educated and capable of maintaining herself is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Upholding the order of the Family Court, the High Court emphasized that the statutory bar under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. disentitles a wife from receiving maintenance if she refuses to reside with her spouse without justifiable grounds.
Background of the Case
The revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 solemnized their marriage on April 16, 2022, according to Hindu rites and rituals. Subsequently, the revisionist instituted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, alleging that she had been subjected to cruelty for dowry and was forced to leave the matrimonial home. She further contended that her husband, despite possessing sufficient financial means, had neglected and refused to maintain her.
However, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah, rejected her maintenance application in Criminal Case No. 933 of 2022, leading the revisionist to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no. 2. It was contended that while the revisionist is an educated lady, she remains unemployed, whereas her husband is a software engineer earning approximately Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. Counsel argued that the trial court erred in law and on facts by rejecting her claim, asserting that the evidence on record established valid reasons for her separate residence and that she is entirely dependent while her husband enjoys a handsome income.
Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the husband, supported by the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State, defended the trial court’s order. They submitted that the order was passed upon a proper appraisal of the evidence. It was argued that the opposite party no. 2 is an unemployed person with no movable or immovable property in his own name, and is dependent upon his parents for his livelihood.
The Court’s Analysis
Upon hearing both sides and examining the record, Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that the Family Court had rejected the maintenance plea primarily on two distinct, well-corroborated grounds.
Addressing the first ground concerning the separation, the Court noted:
“The trial court categorically recorded a finding of fact based on the oral and documentary evidence that the revisionist is an educated lady and she has been living separately from her husband without any sufficient or reasonable cause. Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. expressly creates a statutory bar, stipulating that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance from her husband if she refuses to live with him without sufficient reason. The evidence on record demonstrates that the husband made bona fide efforts to bring her back, which she refused. She went to her maternal home with her uncle on Raksha Bandhan of her own free will and since then she refused to come back again without any sufficient cause.”
Addressing the revisionist’s qualifications and earning capacity, the Court observed:
“It has been established on record that the revisionist is a well educated lady and she is capable to maintain herself. The fundamental object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Since the revisionist is well-qualified, capable of earning, she does not fall within the ambit of a person ‘unable to maintain herself’ as required under the statute.”
The Court also highlighted the constrained boundaries of revisional jurisdiction, noting:
“It is a well-settled principle of law that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is highly constrained. The High Court, while exercising its revisional powers, does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate or re-weigh the evidence. Interference is warranted only when the findings of the trial Court are found to be manifestly perverse, illegal, or suffering from a gross jurisdictional error.”
Decision
The High Court held that the findings arrived at by the Principal Judge, Family Court, were pure findings of fact rooted in the evidence presented during trial. Noting that the trial court had correctly applied the provisions of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. to the facts and that there was no illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting intervention, the High Court held that the criminal revision lacked merit and dismissed the petition.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt. Kanchan vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 7741 of 2025
Bench: Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
Date: September 29, 2026
