Smt Sushila vs Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary

Reserved on : 05.05.2026
Delivered on : 10.07.2026
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3622 of 2024
Smt Sushila
…..Revisionist(s)
Versus
Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashish Pandey, Randhir Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Arun Kumar Maurya, Advocate,
holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2.
2. The present revision has been preferred by the revisionist being
aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 05.03.2024 passed by
Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Maintenance Application
No. 298 of 2019 (Sushila and Another Vs. Rajiv Kumar) u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
3. The trial court has denied maintenance to the revisionist on the
ground that she is not legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2, Rajiv
Kumar Chaudhary and the matter is revisable. Hence, the present
revision is admitted.
4. Perused the record.
5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner
(revisionist herein) has stated that her marriage with Rajiv Kumar was

2
CRLR No. - 3622 of 2024
solemnized through a court marriage on 21.09.2017, and despite her
family providing substantial dowry according to their status, her husband
and in-laws soon began harassing her for additional dowry, particularly
demanding a four-wheeler. She alleged that on 23.10.2017, she was
beaten and expelled from her matrimonial home, after which village
elders intervened and she was later taken to Gorakhpur by her husband
and out of marital relation, she gave birth to a son, but her husband,
father-in-law Achhevar, mother-in-law Koila Devi, brother-in-law
Gautam, and sister-in-law allegedly continued to mentally and physically
torture her. She further alleged that on 19.03.2019, all the accused
confined her in a room, assaulted her brutally, attempted to strangulate
her at the instigation of her mother-in-law, and ultimately drove her out
after taking away her stridhan. Since then, she has been residing at her
parental home with her child without any financial support from the
opposite party. Claiming that she has no independent source of income
while her husband earns well as a lab technician at Digvijay Nath
Degree College and also has agricultural income.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has
sought maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month for herself and Rs.15,000/-
per month for her minor child through her application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. He
next submits that the revisionist is the wife of opposite party no. 2 and
that she was beaten and driven away from her matrimonial house on
19.03.2019 and since then, she has been living at her parents' home and
is unable to support herself. He further submits that the revisionist’s
family had provided substantial dowry to the opposite party no. 2 but her
husband (opposite party no. 2) and in-laws harassed her for demand of
additional dowry.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that an
application for court marriage of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2
was given in the court of District Magistrate on 21.09.2017 but the
marriage was not legally formalized and under pressure from the
revisionist and her family, the opposite party no. 2 brought her to live

3
CRLR No. - 3622 of 2024
with him in his Gorakhpur quarters on 21.09.2017. He next submits that
after learning of relationship of revisionist and opposite party no. 2, the
family of opposite party no. 2 severed ties with him and disowned him,
yet he chose to live with the revisionist for her happiness. He further
submits that the revisionist never visited or lived with the family of
opposite party no. 2 in the village, had no interaction with his parents or
relatives, and was never subjected to dowry demands, harassment, or
assault by him or his family. He also submits that the revisionist and her
family manipulated and pressured opposite party no. 2 into marriage by
threatening him into false criminal cases and suicide. He further submits
that the relationship of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was initially
cordial but after a few months, the revisionist became quarrelsome,
demanded money for expensive items, neglected household
responsibilities, and failed to care properly for their son after his birth.
He further submits that motivated by his job and property, the revisionist
repeatedly threatened him, maintained illicit relationships, and conspired
to harm him, prompting him to report the matter to senior police
officials. He, therefore, submits that the opposite party no. 2 due to the
revisionist’s conduct, threats, and the physical and mental harassment he
allegedly suffered, he can no longer live with the revisionist and has,
therefore, filed a divorce petition to protect his life and well-being.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The trial court has framed issue no.1 as to whether the revisionist
is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2, Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary,
and has decided the same against the applicant no.1/revisionist by
holding that the burden of proof of proving the fact that the issue is on
the applicant no.1 and in support of her case, she has filed the photocopy
of notice before Marriage Officer, Gorakhpur but there is no document
on record from which it can be ascertained that the applicant
no.1/revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 without
recording any tangible reasons for reaching the conclusion. On perusal
of decision while disposing of issue no.1 that after filing of the

4
CRLR No. - 3622 of 2024
aforementioned document, the applicant no.1 resided with opposite party
and out of their relationship, applicant no.2 was born and has concluded
that applicant no.2 is an illegitimate child of opposite party. The manner
in which the issue no.1 has been dealt with, without taking into
consideration the fact that even though the applicant no.1 had not
succeeded in proving the fact of her marriage to opposite party no. 2 but
they were in a relationship as husband and wife for a considerable period
of time and out of the relationship, a son was born, while assessing the
point of entitlement of maintenance from opposite party no. 2 to the
applicant no. 1, goes on to show clear non-application of mind in a
cursory manner and mechanical manner and the trial court has not duly
applied its mind to the facts, to the evidence that has been filed by the
applicant no.1 before the trial court while holding that the applicant no.1
is not a legally wedded wife of opposite party in total ignorance of
documentary evidence of birth certificate of applicant no.2 that has been
filed by applicant no.1 in support of the fact that applicant no.2 is the son
of opposite party.
10. In the present revision, opposite party no. 2 has candidly admitted
that he and the applicant/revisionist had applied for a court marriage
before the competent Magistrate, though the formal procedure could not
be completed. He has further acknowledged the birth of a child from his
relationship with the applicant, and that after the applicant was turned
out of her matrimonial home by his father, he took her to his government
accommodation where they resided together.
11. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that these material
admissions and surrounding circumstances were not adverted to by the
trial court while adjudicating Issue Nos. 1 and 2. The judgment does not
reflect any discussion of the admitted facts regarding the parties
cohabitation, their intention to solemnize marriage, or the birth of the
child from their relationship. Moreover, the judgment nowhere reflects
that the trial court made any effort to seek affidavits of applicant no. 1
and opposite party no. 2 in regard to their income, assets, and liabilities

5
CRLR No. - 3622 of 2024
in compliance with the guidelines issued by the Honble Supreme Court
in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324].
12. The Honble Supreme Court in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah
Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188] has emphasised the necessity of adopting a
purposive and socially contextual approach while dealing with claims
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., rather than adhering to a purely adversarial or
technical interpretation of the law. It has been held that where a man and
a woman have lived together as husband and wife and the relationship is
otherwise established, strict proof of a valid marriage should not be
insisted upon so as to defeat the beneficial object of the provision.
13. Interference is warranted only where:
(i) the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction or failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in him;
(ii) the order is contrary to law or violates statutory provisions;
(iii) there is serious procedural irregularity affecting fairness;
(iv) findings are perverse, i.e., based on no evidence;
(v) material evidence has been ignored or settled principles misapplied,
resulting in grave injustice or hardship.
14. The Supreme Court in Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa (Deceased)
through LRs v. Mahendra Watch Company & Ors. [2026 INSC
348], while reiterating the principles laid down in Dattonpant
Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval [(1975) 2
SCC 246] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78], has held that the High Court, while exercising
revisional jurisdiction, cannot reassess or re-analyse evidence to arrive at
a different conclusion merely because another view is possible.
Interference with findings of fact is permissible only when such findings
are perverse, based on no evidence, suffer from misreading of evidence,
or result in a miscarriage of justice. A revisional court cannot sit as a
court of appeal.

6
CRLR No. - 3622 of 2024
15. In the present case, however, the trial court appears to have
decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in a mechanical manner, holding that
applicant no. 1 is not the wife of opposite party no. 2, but in the same
breath declared applicant no. 2 to be the illegitimate child of applicant
no. 1 and opposite party no. 2. This finding was recorded without
adverting to the admissions of opposite party no. 2 regarding the
application for court marriage, the birth of the child, and the parties
cohabitation in his government accommodation. The findings are,
therefore, devoid of proper application of judicial mind and fail to
consider material circumstances having a direct bearing on the
determination of applicant no. 1s entitlement to maintenance.
16. By the order impugned, the trial court awarded a sum of
Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to applicant no. 2 on the ground that he is the
illegitimate child of opposite party no. 2. Section 125 Cr.P.C. makes it
obligatory for a father to maintain his child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, who is unable to maintain himself. Keeping in view the
legal mandate contained in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the order of the trial
court, insofar as it grants maintenance to applicant no. 2, is affirmed.
Moreover, the same has not been challenged by applicant no. 2.
17. Further, where the applicant has merely made oral assertions
without producing evidence of the net income of the opposite party, the
trial court cannot arrive at a just and reasonable determination of
maintenance. In such circumstances, the affidavits of disclosure of
income, assets, and liabilities, as mandated in Rajnesh (supra), assume
decisive importance. The trial court is duty-bound to direct both parties
to file their respective affidavits in the prescribed format, and any failure
to comply must be taken adversely against the defaulting party. Once
affidavits are filed, the court must base its determination of quantum
upon the statements contained therein. A decision rendered without
consideration of the affidavits amounts to a departure from binding
guidelines and reflects undue haste. If the trial court ignores admitted
income or reaches conclusions unsupported by the record, the revisional

7
CRLR No. - 3622 of 2024
court is justified in interfering, setting aside the finding on quantum, and
remanding the matter for fresh determination.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment dated
05.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Maharajganj, in Maintenance Case No. 298 of 2019 (Sushila & Another
v. Rajiv Kumar), insofar as rejection of claim for maintenance of
applicant/revisionist is concerned, cannot be sustained. The findings
recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are vitiated by non-consideration of
material admissions and relevant circumstances, and the determination
of claim for maintenance of applicant no. 1 is contrary to the binding
guidelines laid down in Rajnesh (supra) as well as general principles of
law relating to admissions of parties and their relevance in court
proceedings.
19. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned order
dated 05.03.2024 passed by the trial court in regard to the entitlement of
applicant no. 2 (minor child) to maintenance.
20. The criminal revision is partly allowed. The impugned judgment
dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Maharajganj, in Maintenance Case No. 298 of 2019 (Sushila & Another
v. Rajiv Kumar), insofar as rejection of claim for maintenance of
applicant no. 1/revisionist is concerned, is set aside.
21. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication of
Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in light of the admissions of opposite party no. 2 and
the purposive interpretation mandated in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah
Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188].
22. The entitlement of applicant no. 2 (minor child) to maintenance at
the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, as directed by the trial court, is
affirmed.
23. Both parties shall file detailed affidavits of disclosure of income,
assets, and liabilities in the format prescribed in Rajnesh (supra). The
trial court shall determine the quantum of maintenance strictly on the

8
CRLR No. - 3622 of 2024
basis of such affidavits and evidence, and dispose of the matter
expeditiously, preferably within three months.
(Achal Sachdev,J.)
July 10, 2026
KS
Digitally signed by :-
KISHAN SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad