Allahabad High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 9 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:158199
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 785 of 2024
Gurpreet Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Gaurabh Srivastava, Rishika Raj Singhal, Shivendra Raj Singhal, Vikrant Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, G.A.
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Misc. Case No.2091 of 2023 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Gurjeet Kaur and another), under Section 127 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court directed the revisionist to pay Rs.4,000/-per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.9,000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 as maintenance in place of Rs.15,000/-.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that on 16.09.2021 the marriage of the revisionist with the opposite party no.2 took place. From the wedlock of revisionist and the opposite party no.2, a baby was born, namely, Parav Singh, who is opposite party no.3 in the instant case. Since 05.11.2022, due to some matrimonial discord, the opposite party no.2 is living separately along with her son-opposite party no.3. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 had filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14.12.2022 before the principal Judge Family Court, Saharanpur, for maintenance from the revisionist along with application for interim maintenance. The case was registered vide Case No. 2365 of 2022 (Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and another Vs. Gurpreet Singh). Thereafter, the revisionist had filed his detailed objection on 28.04.2023. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur after hearing the counsel for the parties vide order dated 23.05.2023,allowed the interim maintenance application of the opposite party no.2, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 keeping in view his illness, as interim maintenance till the disposal of the case. Thereafter, the revisionist had challenged the order dated 23.05.2023 by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 22573 of 2023 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2023 on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy. After dismissal of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 22573 of 2023, on 25.08.2023 the revisionist had filed Case No. 2091 of 2023 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Gurjeet Kaur and another), under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, passed the order impugned whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/-per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.9,000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 as interim maintenance in place of Rs.15,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 is running a firm and the statements of bank account has also been filed before the trial court, which was marked as paper No.155. Counsel for the revisionist further submits that he has also filed ITR receipts which was filed by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court, which shows that the opposite party no.2 is running a partnership firm in the name and style of G.K. Enterprises, therefore, the opposite party no.2 has sufficient means to maintain herself and her son-opposite party no.3 and therefore, the opposite party no.2 does not entitle to get any maintenance from the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that keeping in view the illness of opposite party no.3, who is the son of opposite party no.2, assures to continue to pay the amount of maintenance to him as directed by the trial court vide order dated 15.01.2024.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 submit that the revisionist has filed the instant criminal revision assailing the order dated 15.01.2024 whereby order granting interim maintenance to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 has been modified and case is still pending for adjudication before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur. Learned AGA further submits that against the order of interim maintenance dated 23.05.2023 has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 22573 of 2023 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2023 on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties as well as learned AGA and perusal of records, it reflects that the opposite party no.2 is running a firm in the name and style of M/s G.K. Enterprises and earns handsome amount, therefore, she does not entitle to get any interim maintenance from the revisionist.
7. In view of the fact that the opposite party no.2 is running the G.K. Enterprises and earns handsome amount from the said company, therefore, she is able to maintain herself, hence the order dated 15.01.2024 is modified to the extent that the interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month granted by the trial court to the opposite party no.2, shall remain stayed till final adjudication of maintenance case pending before the Family Court, Saharanpur and the interim maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month granted to the opposite party no.3 vide order dated 15.01.2024, is hereby affirmed.
8. With the above observations/directions, the instant revision is partly allowed.
9. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter and decide the same after hearing the counsel for the parties without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 9, 2025
Prajapati RK
