Allahabad High Court
Bavita vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177489
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5924 of 2024
Bavita
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Firoz Ahmad Khan, Javed Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Rang Raj Giri, Sanjay Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 18th October, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1703 of 2022 (Bavita Vs. Ravindra Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by the revisionist, has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the revisionist (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application and till the date of passing of impugned judgment and also Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has also prayed by means of the instant application that considering the net income of opposite party no.2, the amount of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionist be enhanced from the date of filing of the instant application.
4. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly income of the opposite party no.2 is more than Rs. 60,000/-, as is admitted in his cross-examination, which has been mentioned at page no. 61 of the paper book and the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionist to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month under the impugned judgment from the date of passing of the impugned judgment is too meagre and is on the lower side and not commensurate with the net income of the opposite party no. 2, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, as well such amount of maintenance allowance is insufficient to meet out the revisionist's day to day expenses like food, medical expenses etc.
5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that considering the present inflation and above circumstances, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified while enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionist.
5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and awarding Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that keeping in view the fact that the opposite party no.2 has also the liability of his old parents, who are suffering from some ailments and also the liability of physically handicapped brother, the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment cannot be said to be meagre.
7. After arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State, when this Court is proceeding to enhance the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment by the trial court, keeping in view the net income of the opposite party no.2 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 comes up with a prayer that considering the whole liabilities of the opposite party no.2 including his old parents and physically handicapped brother, except his wife i.e. revisionist, if Rs. 3,000/- per month is enhanced, then in that circumstance, the same shall be paid by him easily without any fault.
8. To the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the revisionist has no objection and agreed with the same.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that interest of substantial justice would be served if the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment is e enhanced to Rs. 9,000/- from Rs. 6,000/-.
10. Consequently, judgment and order dated 18th October, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1703 of 2022 (Bavita Vs. Ravindra Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C is modified to the extent that now the opposite party no.2 shall pay Rs. 9,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. Since it would be too harsh for opposite party no.2 to pay arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in one stroke, this Court therefore, provides that the same shall be paid by the revisionist in 5 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 10th October, 2025.
11. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the court below shall be calculated on the basis of amount of maintenance allowance as fixed by this Court herein above and after that if it is found that any amount has been paid in excess, the same shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid.
12. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
October 7, 2025
Sushil/-
