Allahabad High Court
Smt. Lovely vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:185866
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6566 of 2024
Smt. Lovely
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Rakesh Kumar Garg, Yash Garg
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Ramesh Kumar Sahu, Sunil Vashisth
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 Mr. Yash Garg, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sunil Vashisth, 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. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Agra in Maintenance Case No. 1058 of 2019 (Smt. Loveli Vs. Raghvendra Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Khadauli, District-Agra, whereby the trial court while partly allowing the instant application filed by the revisionist, has directed opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application i.e. 27th September, 2019 till the date of passing of the impugned judgment i.e. 6th September, 2024 only.
4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial, has committed gross error, while passing the impugned judgment, in awarding monthly maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the revisionist for a limited period only i.e. from the date of filing of instant application till the date of passing of the impugned judgment i.e. 27th September, 2019 to 6th September, 2024 only. No reasons or findings have been recorded by the trial court while awarding such maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist for limited period.
5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since impugned judgment has been passed without application of mind, the same cannot be legally sustained is liable to be set aside.
6 . On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State fairly concede that inadvertently, the trial court has passed the impugned judgment while awarding the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month for a limited period i.e. from the date of filing of application till the date of passing of the impugned judgment. The same is not reasonable and justifiable.
7. On the above premise, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. submit that the impugned judgment be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the trial court to decide the same afresh.
8. Except on the above issue, no arguments have been advanced on behalf of any of the parties on other issues.
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 finds that it is an admitted case that the revisionist the is legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party no.2 has any source of income so that she may maintain herself.
10. So far as the total amount as awarded by the trial court under the impugned order to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month is concerned, the trial court in its finding has not treated the opposite party no.2 to be a labourer but there is no documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial with regard to exact work and income of the opposite party no.2. Keeping in the mind the present inflation, scenario, cost of living, food, clothing, medical expenses, etc., this Court is of the considered opinion that 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. 5,000/- cannot be said to be illegal or incorrect as the same is reasonable, realistic and justifiable. However, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the trial court has committed gross error and illegality in the awarding the said maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist for only limited period for which no plausible reasons or findings have been given by the trial court. In view of this Court, there is no provision provided in Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein award of limited duration has been provided without any change of circumstances.
11. 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.
12. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Agra in Maintenance Case No. 1058 of 2019 (Smt. Loveli Vs. Raghvendra Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Khadauli, District-Agra is modified to the extent that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application i.e. 27th September, 2019 and shall pay the same continuously unless or until the circumstances are changed as per the procedure prescribed in the Section 125 Cr.P.C. It would be too harsh for the opposite party no.2 to pay the total amount of arrears of maintenance allowance to the revisionist from the date of filing of application, this Court, therefore, provides that the opposite party no.2 shall pay the same in six equal monthly installments. The first installment shall commence from 15th November, 2025.
13. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court 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 already been paid, the same shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid.
14. It shall always be open for the revisionist to file an appropriate application before the trial court in accordance with law in case circumstances are changed for enhancement of maintenance allowance as provided herein above.
15. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
October 16, 2025
Sushil/-
