Allahabad High Court
Smt Parul Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181131
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4274 of 2024
Smt Parul Yadav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri S. M. Faraz, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Mahendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Farrukhabad, in Case No. 66/12/2022 (Smt. Parul Yadav Vs. Devesh Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the opposite party no.2 has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the revisionist from the date of filing of application and till the date of passing of impugned judgment and order and Rs. 12,000/- per month to the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. The revisionist has also prayed for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in her favour under the impugned judgment.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionist to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of filing of instant application and till the date of passing of the impugned judgment is too meagre amount and not commensurate with the net income of the opposite party no.2 which clearly violates the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324. He further submits that on one hand, the trial court under the impugned order has awarded Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment but on the other hand, as on what basis the trial court has awarded only Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of filing of instant application till the date of passing of the impugned judgment.
5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist from the date of filing of instant application till the date of passing of the impugned judgment be enhanced to a realistic and reasonable amount, which would have been applicable during the period between date of filing of instant application and the date of passing of impugned judgment when the monthly income of the opposite party no.2 was in lower side in comparison to period i.e. at the time of passing of the impugned judgment, while modifying the impugned judgment.
6. 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 monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist referred to above, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State, this Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. This Court may sorry to record that from the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial, the trial court has assessed the net monthly income of the opposite party no.2 as about Rs.48,000/- per month and on that basis he has awarded Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, which is 25% of the total net income of the opposite party no.2 i.e. Rs. 48,000/- and the same is realistic, justifiable and reasonable and the award of maintenance allowance could not be disputed neither by the learned counsel for the revisionist nor by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 or the learned A.G.A. However, on the other hand, as to on what basis or evidence, the trial court under the same impugned judgment has awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month only in favour of the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application till the date of passing of the impugned judgment. In the opinion of the Court, this part of the impugned judgment cannot be legally sustained is liable to be modified.
9. Normally this Court would have remanded the instant matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the trial court for deciding afresh, but looking to the huge pendency before the trial court and also for saving the precious time of the trial court, this Court is proceeding to modify the impugned judgment.
10. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Farrukhabad, in Case No. 66/12/2022 (Smt. Parul Yadav Vs. Devesh Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.is modified to the extent that now the opposite party no.2 shall pay Rs. 6000/- per month to the revisionist (wife) in place of Rs.2,000/- as was directed by the trial court in her favour, towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application and till the date of passing of the impugned judgment as the same is reasonable, realistic and justifiable looking to the fact that between the period i.e. filing of instant application and the date of passing of the impugned judgment the net monthly income of the opposite party no.2 was in lower side in comparison to the period when the impugned judgment has been passed. Since it would be too harsh for the 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 opposite party no.2 in 5 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 15th November, 2025. The remaining part of the impugned judgment passed by the trial court shall be complied with in letter and in spirit.
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 10, 2025
Akbar
