# Ramraj Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1232 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-27 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5837 of 2025 - **Bench:** Lakshmi Kant Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramraj-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54383 - **Pages:** 7 ## Text 1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES was approximately 16 years of age,whereas under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, a preliminary assessment requires the child's age to be 16 years or more as of the date of incident. 17. From the above discussion and in the considered opinion of this Court, "about" could not be construed as "completion" provided under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 19. Accordingly,the criminal revision is allowed. 20. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad and the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad are hereby set aside. 21. It is directed that the case of the revisionist shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions applicable to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 22. The matter is remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 23. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to express my appreciation to my Research Associate, Ms. Divya Pandey for her thorough research and assistance to the Court in the instant case. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1232 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. Criminal Revision No. 5837 of 2025 Ramraj ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the Family Court committed illegality and material irregularity in allowing the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and awarding maintenance to wife without framing any specific point for determination regarding the allegation of unchastity raised by the husband in his written statement, which was a statutory bar to the wife's claim for maintenance. 4 All. Ramraj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1233 Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 125 - Maintenance - Grant of maintenance to wife - Allegation of adultery by husband - Necessity of determination - Framing of Issues - Family Court - Evidence - Written Statement - Pleadings - Opportunity to adduce evidence - Material irregularity - Revisional jurisdiction - Remand - The revisionist-husband challenged the judgment and order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case No. 39 of 2021 u/s 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application filed by the wife for maintenance was partially allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance - The revisionist contended that he had specifically pleaded in his written statement that the opposite party-wife was living an unchaste life and had an illicit relationship with another person - However, the trial court failed to frame any issue or point for determination regarding such allegation and passed the maintenance order without recording any finding on the said aspect - The opposite party and the State opposed the revision, submitting that no issue regarding chastity was framed and therefore, no evidence on such aspect could be considered - It was further argued that the revisionist failed to demonstrate any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Held: Although no assertion regarding chastity of opposite party no. 2 was present in petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. but the allegation of unchastity of opposite party no. 2 has been made in written statement filed by revisionist before the trial court - But the trial court did not frame any point for determination in this regard - Consequently no finding on that point could be given by trial court which causes serious injustice to revisionist, set aside - The impugned orders suffers from material irregularities - Accordingly, instant criminal revision allowed - The Trial Court is directed to frame a specific point for determination regarding unchastity of opposite party no. 2 and, thereafter, after affording adequate opportunity to parties to adduce evidence, if court requires necessary, to pass fresh order/judgment in accordance with law, expeditiously and without causing any undue delay. [Paras 10 to 13] (E-13) Case Law Cited Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2004) 4 SCC 468; Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat (1985) 4 SCC 337; Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and Another v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and Another (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385 - referred to List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 List of Keywords Criminal Revision; Family Court; Maintenance; s. 125 Cr.P.C.; Principal Judge; Criminal proceeding; Civil Procedure Code; Living in adultery constitute statutory bar; Evidence; Written statement; Allegation of unchastity; Point for determination; Trial Court; Revisional Jurisdiction; Material irregularity; Serious injustice; Impugned order set aside; Revision allowed; Matter remanded. Case Arising From ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 5837 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, in Case No. 39 of 2021. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Revisionist(s): Saurabh Yadav, Suraj Raj Advs. for the Opposite Party(s): G.A., Kailash Chaudhary, Nitesh Kumar Chaudhary 1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (Delivered by Hon'ble 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:- "8. यह ि क याच का िश्व न कुमार पुत्र िज्ञा त ग्र ा म व पोस्ट -बरईपार, हाल मुकामनहर चौराहा, डोिहरया कला, पोस्ट -ि मनवा, थाना-िहजनवाूँ, जनपद-गोरखपुर के िाथ िनैि तक िम् बन् ध था ि जिके िम् बन् ध में िश्व न कुमार क पत्न म ना देव ने ि दनांक 27-12-2020 को थानाध् यक्ष िहजनवों , गोरखपुर को एक ि शकायत प्र ा थनात पत्र द थ ि जिक छायाप्र ि त शपथ पत्र के िाथ िंलग् न है। ि जि पर एनेक् च रिं०-1 डाला गया है। 10- यह ि क याच का चाल-चलन ठ क नह ं था इि ि लये वह शपथकतार् के िाथ रहकर वैवाि हक ज वन का ि नवाहत बखूब नह ं क और शपथकतार् को वैवाि हक ज वन िे वंि चत रख । याच व शपथकतार् के ब च में कई बार िुलह-िमझौता हु आ लेि कन याच ने िुलह िमझौता का कभ पालन नह ं ि कया।" 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 4 All. Ramraj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1235 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 or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself. a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and 10 pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. [Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: 1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.) Explanation: For the purposes of this chapter,- (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act 1875 is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.] (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, Issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made; Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation. If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order" 4 All. Ramraj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1237 8. Due to existence of Clause 4 to section 125 of Cr.P.C. if wife leads her life in adulatory she cannot claim any maintenance from her husband meaning thereby if specific pleading in this regard is made by husband i.e. crucial point which must be determined prior to order of payment of any maintenance. It is apparent from perusal of written statement of revisionist occurred on page 90 of paper book that the revisionist has placed specific versions disclosing the name and address of co-adulterer. Though the revisionist is defendant/opposite party before the trial court and the case was filed by opposite party no. 2. Though the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C. is a part of criminal proceeding but when such proceeding is initiated the provisions of civil procedure code applies. In Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2004) 4 SCC 468 and Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat (1985) 4 SCC 337 it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the jurisdiction exercised by Magistrate under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. is not strictly criminal in nature and that proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. are essentially civil in nature. In Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and Another Vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and Another (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385 the Apex Court has held that every final order under section 125 Cr.P.C. and other sections referred to in subsection (c) of Section 354 must contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. In other words, Section 125 and Section 354(6) must be read together. In Shailesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another order dated 14th November, 2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court it is observed that several judgments passed by the learned Trial Court have been decided without framing any points for determination. A perusal of the record further shows that the trial court decided the section 125 Cr.P.C. application without framing any points for determination, which is mandatory as per Section 354(6) Cr.P.C. This provision requires that every order under section 117 or sub-section (2) of Section 138, and every final order made under Section 125, Section 145, or Section 147, shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. It is clarified that in the absence of framing any points for determination, it is difficult to ascertain the basis on which the Trial Court passed the order or awarded the maintenance amount. 9. At the stage of framing of points for determination the trial court should be very cautious while considering the provisions contained under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Living in adultery constitutes a statutory Bar to the entitlement of a wife to get maintenance meaning thereby it is the legal requirements that the petition of wife in this regard must contained the pleading that the she is not living in adultery in any manner whatsoever. 10. In view of above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that although no assertion regarding chastity of opposite party no. 2 was present in petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. but the allegation of unchastity of opposite party no. 2 has been made in written statement filed by revisionist before the trial court. But the trial court did not frame any point for determination in this regard. Consequently no finding on that point could be given by the trial court which causes serious injustice to the revisionist in the matter. 11. In view of above, the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case No. 39/2021, under section 125 Cr.P.C. suffers from material irregularities, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside invoking its revisionist jurisdiction and present criminal revision deserves to be allowed. 1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby allowed. The Judgment and order dated 27.06.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur is hereby set aside. 13. The Trial Court is directed to frame a specific point for determination regarding unchastity of opposite party no. 2 and, thereafter, after affording adequate opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the said issue, if court requires necessary, to pass fresh order/judgment in accordance with law, expeditiously and without causing any undue delay. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1238 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. Criminal Revision No. 6123 of 2025 Urvesh ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the delay in conducting preliminary assessment u/s 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, would invalidate the assessment and cause miscarriage of justice to the revisionist, thereby requiring interference with the order directing that the revisionist be treated as a major and tried as an adult. Headnotes Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - ss. 15, 20 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - s. - 376 - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - ss. 3⁄4 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 - Rule 10A(1) - Child in conflict with law - Heinous offence - Preliminary assessment - Mental and physical capacity - Understanding consequences of offence - Juvenile Justice Board - Children's Court - Adult trial - Transfer of juvenile - Delay in assessment - Statutory provision - Rehabilitation - Psychological evaluation - Age determination - Victim's appeal - POCSO proceedings - Fair trial - Procedural safeguards - Judicial delay - Scope of - The revisionist challenged the order passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Budaun in Criminal Appeal whereby the appellate court set aside the order of Juvenile Justice Board and directed that the revisionist be treated as a major during trial - An F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist under provisions of I.P.C. and POCSO Act alleging sexual assault upon the victim - During the alleged occurrence, the age of revisionist was 17 years 11 months and 19 days, and he claimed juvenility on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate - His application for being treated as a juvenile was initially rejected, but after directions of High Court, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted preliminary assessment under provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and declared him a juvenile - The victim preferred an appeal against the order of Juvenile Justice Board, and Special Judge, POCSO Court , considering the gravity of offence and preliminary assessment report, modified the order and directed that the revisionist be tried as an adult - The revisionist contended that the preliminary assessment conducted after considerable delay violated provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and adversely affected his right to fair trial.