Heard Sri B.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Zawwar Haider Naqvi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rahul Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

1. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj in Maintenance Case No. 604 of 2020 (Smt. Humaira Riyaz and others vs. Mohammad Daud) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application for maintenance filed by the revisionist/wife has been rejected while maintenance has been awarded to the two minor sons.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of the revisionist with her first husband, namely Abdul Waheed Ansari, was solemnized on 03.02.2002. It is contended that the said husband had already pronounced talaq on 27.02.2005. Thereafter, a declaratory suit was filed before the Family Court and, by decree dated 08.01.2013 passed in Marriage Petition No. 06 of 2007, the aforesaid talaq dated 27.02.2005 was declared valid. It is further submitted that the validity of the said divorce has also been noticed by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 11.05.2023, and the Special Leave Petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 25.08.2023.

3. It is further contended that after observing the period of iddat, the revisionist solemnized her marriage with the opposite party no.2 on 27.05.2012 with full knowledge of the earlier divorce. Out of the said wedlock two sons were born. It is submitted that the parties lived together as husband and wife for several years and the opposite party no.2 has himself admitted the marriage as well as the paternity of the

two sons. Therefore, the learned Family Court committed a manifest error in treating the marriage between the parties as void.

Learned counsel further submits that the opposite party no.2 is a Central Government employee earning a substantial salary; however, he has neglected and refused to maintain the revisionist and their minor sons, which compelled the revisionist to initiate proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is contended that although interim maintenance was granted earlier and the same was upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Family Court, while passing the final order dated 27.05.2025, has wrongly denied maintenance to the revisionist on a hyper-technical ground.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the learned Family Court has rejected the claim of maintenance of the revisionist mainly on the ground that on the date of Nikah between the revisionist and opposite party no.2, the marriage of the revisionist with her first husband had not been legally dissolved and, therefore, the second marriage was void. It is argued that the said finding is contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that the first husband of the revisionist had already pronounced talaq earlier and thereafter a declaratory suit was filed before the Family Court seeking a declaration regarding the said talaq, which was decided by a decree declaring the talaq to be valid. It is further submitted that the decree passed by the Family Court was merely declaratory in nature and only recognized the earlier talaq which had already taken place.

6. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles governing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a beneficial provision intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *N. Usha Rani vs. Moodudula Srinivas* arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7660 of 2017 to contend that a woman cannot be denied maintenance merely on technical objections regarding the validity of the marriage, partic