Maintenance orders require the trial court to frame specific points for determination. Failure to address substantive defenses, such as allegations of adultery which act as a statutory bar to maintenance, constitutes a material procedural irregularity that invalidates the final order.

JUDGMENT :

LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of revisionist, is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Yadav, the learned counsel for revisionist, Mr. Gyanendra Singh, the learned AGA representing State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

3. The present revision has been preferred by revisionist Ramraj challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Case No. 39/2021, under section 125 Cr.P.C. (Kumari Shushila Vs. Ramraj) wherein the trial court partially allowed the application of opposite party no. 2/the complainant under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the revisionist was ordered to pay Rs. 4,000/- monthly as maintenance to opposite party no.2 the wife of revisionist.

4. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned order has manifest error of law. It is absolutely illegal, unjust, improper, arbitrary against the evidence on record, hence the same is liable to be set aside by this Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction.

5. To elaborate his submission learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist urged that the revisionist has claimed in his objection that the opposite party no. 2 is leading unchastity life but the trial court failed to frame any issue in this regard and consequently no finding in this record has been recorded by the trial court and it is thus contended that the impunged order is not sustainable in law. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon paragraph 8 and 10 of the written statement which occurs at page 90 of the paper book. The relevant paragraph nos. 8 and 10 of the aforesaid writtten statement are quoted here under:-

6. Per contra learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 submitted that there no issue was framed regarding chastity of opposite party no. 2. In such circumstances if there any evidence regarding unchastity or chastity had been adduced, such evidence could not be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that the parties are bound to lead evidence confining the issues framed in the matter and submitted that the revisionist could not show any material irregularity in the impugned order. The jurisdiction of trial court on the matter is not disputed so this criminal revision is liable to be set aside and impugned order is liable to be confirmed.

7. Having heard the submissions urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist regarding fact of unchastity claimed by revisionist and non framing of issue in this regard is clearly borne out from the record. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. entitles the wife, children and parents having no sufficient means of maintenance to get maintenance from husband, parents or children as the case may be, having sufficient means to maintain his wife, his/her parents or children as the case may be. In addition to that the wife has to qualify certain additional qualifications to get maintenance from her husband. Section 125 Cr.P.C. reproduced herein under:-

" 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical o