Allahabad High Court Upholds Denial of Maintenance to Woman Living Separately Without Sufficient Reason

Court Dismisses Revision Petition; Finds No Error in Trial Court's Rejection of Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Madan Pal Singh, has dismissed a revision petition filed by Smt. Gudiya challenging the rejection of her maintenance application by the Family Court, Chandauli. The High Court's decision, dated November 17, 2025, upholds the trial court's findings that Gudiya was living separately from her husband without sufficient reason and was prima facie living with another man without legal marriage.

The case, titled "Smt. Gudiya v. State of U.P. and another," involved a criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the Family Court's order in Maintenance Case No. 82 of 2019. The Family Court had rejected Gudiya's application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a provision meant to provide relief to those unable to maintain themselves.

During the proceedings, the trial court found that Gudiya had altered her Aadhaar card and voter list, indicating separate living and a possible remarriage, which she failed to justify satisfactorily. Furthermore, the court noted that her separate living was voluntary, driven by a belief that her marriage was incompatible due to socio-economic differences between her family and her husband's.

The revisionist argued that the trial court did not consider her allegations and the evidence she presented adequately. However, the High Court agreed with the trial court's assessment, stating that the findings were based on a true and correct appreciation of evidence, and thus, could not be deemed perverse or illegal. The High Court emphasized its limitations in revisional jurisdiction, noting that it could not re-evaluate the evidence or substitute its findings for those of the trial court.

The High Court further observed that societal practices, such as resolving disputes outside court without legal formalities, often lead to misunderstandings and legally invalid agreements, as seen in this case. Despite these societal challenges, the court maintained that the revisionist failed to provide sufficient cause for living separately from her husband.

In conclusion, the High Court's dismissal of the revision petition underscores the necessity for substantial evidence and justifiable reasons in maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C., reinforcing the trial court's role in evaluating such evidence meticulously.

Bottom Line:

Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging rejection of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Trial Court's findings upheld that revisionist living separately from husband without sufficient reason and prima facie living with another man without legal marriage.

Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Cr.P.C., Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.

Smt. Gudiya v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812352