Ashu And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 11895 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ashu And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:191364
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3932 of 2024   
 
   Ashu And 4 Others    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Tej Om Prakash Gupta   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Alok Singh, G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Heard Mr. Tej Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Alok Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 11th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2023 (Smt. Nandini Vs. State of U.P. & 5 Others), under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the "D.V.Act"), whereby the appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by opposite party no.2 and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Village Court (Gram Nayayalaya), Tundala, District Firozabad dated 31st March, 2023, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 6, 000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and her son Nirbhay towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act with a further direction that if any amount towards maintenance allowance awarded in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is already receiving by opposite party no.2 and her son Nirbhay, the same shall be adjusted from the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded herein above.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that initially opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint under Sections 12,18,19,20 and 22 of the D.V. Act against her husband (revisionist herein) and four other family members of her husband. After trial proceedings, the Judicial Magistrate, Gram Nayayalaya, Tundala, Firozabad vide judgment and order dated 31st March, 2023 has rejected the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 on the ground that the opposite party no.2 has not approached the trial court by means of application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act with clean hands. Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the aforementioned appeal has been filed by opposite party no.2 and the same has been allowed under the impugned judgment, hence the present criminal revision.

4. The solitary argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the appellate court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and her son Nirbhay to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist no.1, as he was working as a labourer in bangles factory on temporary basis.

5. To buttress the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the trial court in the case initiated by the opposite party no. 2 and her son Nirbhay under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., he is already paying total sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and her son Nirbhay.

6. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the appellate court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order, therefore, the same be set aside.

7. 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 revisionists by submitting that the appellate court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and awarding Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and her son Nirbhay towards maintenance allowance from the date of the filing of application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 looking to the present scenario and inflation, cost of food, clothing, medical expenses, education expenses of a school going child i.e. son of opposite party no.2, who is said to be six years old etc., the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the appellate court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no.2 and her son, cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.

9. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the appellate court while passing the impugned judgment has not committed any error in the eyes of law, therefore, present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionists nor the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue. Meaning thereby the issue, which has been confined in the present criminal revision before this Court is to examine the award of quantum of maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 and her son Nirbhay by the appellate court under the impugned judgment.

11. 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 opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist no.1 and her son, namely, Nirbhay is the real minor son of the revisionist no.1 and as per the settled law, the revisionists cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and his son.

12. From perusal of the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Case No. 34 of 2017 (Smt. Nandini and Nirbhay Vs. Ashu) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the issue of separate living of the opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist no.1 along with her son, has already been decided in favour of opposite party no.2 by the trial court after completion of summary proceedings. In the said case, the trial court has opined that the revisionist has ousted the opposite party no.2 along with her son from her matrimonial house to be precise on 10th May, 2016 and this is the sufficient reason for opposite party no.2 to live separately. After recording its findings of facts on five issues framed in the said case, the trial court has awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and her son Nirbhay towards maintenance allowance. A copy of the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2021 has been enclosed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit accompanying the present criminal revision.

13. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is also cropped up that the issue of domestic violence being committed upon opposite party no.2 on the part of the revisionists has also been decided in favour of opposite party no.2

14. Whereafter opposite party no.2 has filed complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act alleging therein that domestic violence has been committed upon her by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and in connection with the same, she was ousted from her matrimonial house on 10th May, 2016. The same fact has also been stated by opposite party no.2 in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said complaint case has been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Gram Nyayalaya, Tundala, Firozabad vide judgment and order dated 31st March, 2023 on the ground that she has not approached the court with clean hands by concealing the material fact.

15. The appellate court under the impugned judgment and order has recorded that even application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed, complaint case under Section 12 D.V. Act can be filed by her. Only on the ground that she has not disclosed in the complaint case about the fact that she is already receiving maintenance allowance awarded by other forum in another case, she cannot deprived of filing of complaint case under Section 12 D.V. Act, as there no bar provided in any of the provisions of law.

16. The appellate court has also recorded that considering the report of the D.P.R.O., it is admitted position that the domestic violence has been committed upon opposite party no.2 by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and when she refused to fulfill the same, she was ousted from her matrimonial house on 10th May, 2016. The appellate court has also recorded that if a complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 12 D.V. Act was rejected for want of prosecution i.e. in her absence, she cannot be deprived her to file another complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

17. After recording categorical findings of fact, the appellate court under the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal filed by opposite party no.2 after setting aside the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate, Gram Nyayalaya, Tundala, Firozabad, whereby the complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act has been rejected.

18. So far as the solitary submission advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the appellate court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and her son Nirbhay is excessive and exorbitant specifically on account of the fact that opposite party no.2 and her son is already receiving Rs. 3,000/- per month under the judgment and order passed by the trial court in the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is concerned, this Court finds that the appellate court under the impugned judgment has already held that any amount of maintenance allowance which opposite party no.2 and her son is receiving as awarded by other forum in another proceedings, shall be adjusted from the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the appellate court under the impugned judgment.

19. Under such circumstances, now the revisionist no.1 is liable to be pay only Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and her son towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the appellate court and he is not required to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of opposite party no.2 and her son Nirbhay on the principle of smaller amount of maintenance being merged into larger amount of maintenance allowance.

20. Looking the present scenario, current inflation, cost of living, food, clothing, medical expenses, the education expenses of a school going child i.e. son of revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2, who is said to be six years old etc., the total amount of maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month as awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 and her son, who is none other than the legally wedded wife and real minor son of the revisionist no.1, cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant even if it is accepted the admission of learned counsel for the revisionists that he is a skill labourer.

21. On the above discussions and deliberation and deeper scrutiny of the records, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the appellate court.

22. Consequently, this Court hold that the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

24. It is made clear that in case any amount of arrears which is yet to be paid by the revisionist no.1 to opposite party no.2 and her son towards maintenance allowance as directed by this Court herein above, the same shall be paid by the revisionist no.1 in 15 monthly equal installments and the first installment shall commence from 10th November, 2025.

25.It is also clarified that if any amount already paid by the revisionist no.1 to opposite party no.2 and her son towards maintenance allowance shall be adjusted from the amount which is yet to be paid by him towards maintenance allowance as directed by this Court herein above.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

October 30, 2025

Sushil/-