Allahabad HC Upholds Rejection of Wife’s Maintenance Plea, Cites Voluntary Separation and Prima Facie Adultery

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld a Chandauli family court’s decision refusing maintenance to a woman under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after concluding that she had been living away from her husband without sufficient justification and had failed to rebut material indicating that she was residing with another man.

The High Court dismissed her criminal revision petition, observing that the trial court’s findings were based on a correct appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh noted that the family court had already acknowledged that the woman was the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2, Vikash Kumar. However, it had rejected her maintenance claim on the ground that she was not residing with her husband for valid reasons and that there was prima facie material suggesting she was living with another man which could disqualify a claimant under Section 125 CrPC.

The dispute originated with a maintenance application filed in 2019 by the woman, who alleged that her husband subjected her to cruelty after securing a constable’s job in the Uttar Pradesh Police. She claimed she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and had no independent means of livelihood. Her husband opposed the plea, asserting that the couple had mutually separated through a Panchayat-level settlement which operated as a “divorce agreement". He also alleged that she had subsequently remarried another man and produced documents such as a voter identity card and a village Pradhan’s certificate to support the claim.

The woman denied any remarriage and argued before both courts that the so-called Panchayat divorce had no legal basis. She maintained that she had been driven out of her home and pointed to documentary and oral evidence to establish her continued relationship with her husband.

However, the trial court found several inconsistencies. It noted that while her Aadhaar card of 2016 mentioned her husband’s name, she got the card amended in 2017 to replace it with her father’s name. Despite having amended the Aadhaar, she filed her maintenance application in 2019 by enclosing the cancelled Aadhaar card rather than the updated one. Court held that this amounted to concealment of material facts and an attempt to mislead the court.

The voter list produced by the husband showed her husband’s name as “Navrang Paswan,” issued in January 2019. While she denied that the voter ID belonged to her, court recorded that she had taken no legal steps to challenge the document, even though such remedies were available under the law.

The trial court also took note of her cross-examination, where she admitted that she had willingly left her matrimonial home and never returned. She further conceded that her parents were financially well-off while her husband came from a poorer household, and that this mismatch created incompatibility. Court held that these admissions, coupled with the documentary evidence, demonstrated that she had left the matrimonial home of her own volition.

The High Court held that these findings constituted categorical factual determinations based on evidence and could not be revisited. It emphasised that revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the trial court’s view is perverse or illegal. Finding no such infirmity, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the denial of maintenance.

Case Title: Smt. Gudiya vs State of UP and another

Order Date: November 17, 2025

Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh