Failure to frame issues on adultery in Section 125 CrPC proceedings vitiates the maintenance order.

The revisionist, Ramraj, challenged an order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, which directed him to pay ₹4,000 monthly maintenance to his wife (Opposite Party No. 2) under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

In his written statement before the trial court, the revisionist specifically alleged that his wife was leading an "unchaste life" (living in adultery) and provided the name and address of the alleged co-adulterer.

Despite these specific pleadings in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the written statement, the trial court failed to frame an issue or record any findings regarding her chastity.

1. Whether the trial court is mandated to frame specific points for determination, including allegations of adultery, before passing a final order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the failure to frame an issue regarding the wife's alleged unchastity, despite specific pleadings, constitutes a material irregularity vitiating the maintenance order.

Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., which provides a statutory bar to maintenance if a wife is "living in adultery".

Section 354(6) of the Cr.P.C., requiring every final order under Section 125 to contain "points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision".

The court cited Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat and Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar to establish that proceedings under Section 125 are essentially civil in nature.

Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas, which mandates that Section 125 and Section 354(6) must be read together to ensure reasoned decisions based on defined points of determination.

The High Court observed that because Section 125(4) creates a statutory bar to maintenance based on adultery, a husband's specific pleading regarding unchastity is a "crucial point" that must be determined prior to ordering payment.

The court noted that although Section 125 proceedings are part of the Cr.P.C., they follow civil-like procedures where points for determination are mandatory to provide a basis for the award.

The High Court reasoned that in the absence of framing such points, it is impossible to ascertain the legal basis of the maintenance award, and the omission caused "serious injustice" to the revisionist.

The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the impugned order dated 27.06.2025, remanding the matter to the Trial Court with directions to frame a specific point for determination regarding the unchastity of Opposite Party No. 2, allow parties to adduce evidence on that issue, and pass a fresh judgment.