Allahabad High Court
Arvind Verma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:163206
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2050 of 2024
Arvind Verma
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Vipin Gangwar
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vipin Gangwar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 11 of 2021 (Priti Verma and two others Vs. Arvind Verma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Hafijganj, District Bareilly, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1000/- per month each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4, from the date of application to the date of order and Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1000/- per month each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4 (till they attained the age of majority), from the date of order.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a labourer and he is doing the work of greasing in 2-3 wheeler vehicles. He has no permanent source of income while opposite party no.2 is the Bareilly District President (Women) of Rastriya Hindu Mahasabaha (Bharat) and she is a active social worker and she has her own source of earning. The counsel for the revisionist has invited the attention of the Court towards the issue no.3 which was decided by the trial court, wherein the trial court has observed that without any income an woman cannot participate in political activities.
4. It is also submitted that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is self contradictory. The provisions of Section 125(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically mentions that a wife can only be entitled to claim maintenance when she is unable to maintain herself whereas the court while deciding the issue no.3 reached at the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 prima facie is financial sound and able to maintain herself, therefore, the order passed by the trial court requires intervention by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has emphasized that the opposite party no.2 has illicit relations with one Tasleem Khan alias Hero Khan and presently she is living live-in-relationship with the said person and in this regard he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the documents annexed as Annexure Nos.6 and 7 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision, perusal of which indicates that opposite party no.2 being District President (Women) of Rastriya Hindu Mahasabaha (Bharat), Bareilly often quarrels with the revisionist and also extends threats with dire consequences.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 stated that huge amount of arrears of maintenance is due to be paid by the revisionist. However, they do not dispute the fact that the opposite party no.2 is the District President (Women) of Rastriya Hindu Mahasabaha (Bharat) and she is actively participating in the political and social activities. This fact was also not denied that the revisionist is labour but he also raised contention that alongwith greasing work, the revisionist is also doing the work of die-cutting. The amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is not excessive. The instant revision deserves to be dismissed.
7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, it appears that it is admitted case that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are the minor sons of the revisionist. So far as the maintenance of minor children is concerned, admittedly the responsibility of their maintenance is on the shoulder of the revisionist till they attains the age of majority but in so far as the maintenance awarded by the trial court to the opposite party no.2 is concerned, the finding recorded by the trial court qua the opposite party no.2 is self contradictory as the provisions of Section 125(1)(a) Cr.P.C. itself says that a wife can only be entitled to claim maintenance when she is unable to maintain herself but in the instant case the opposite party no.2 is the District President (Women) of Rastriya Hindu Mahasabaha (Bharat) and she is earning sufficiently, therefore, she is able to maintain herself, though the trial court reached at the conclusion that she is economically sound and admittedly able to maintain herself, even then the trial court has awarded maintenance to the opposite party no.2, therefore, the finding of the trial court qua the maintenance awarded to the opposite party no.2 being wholly perverse and against the fact and law deserves to be set aside and quashed.
8. The trial court in paragraph nos.19, 20 and 21 of the judgment, recorded its finding that the opposite party no.2 is holding the post of District President (Women) of Rastriya Hindu Mahasabaha (Bharat), Bareilly and further held that nobody can take part in these type of activities without having any source of income, in spite of these facts, the trial court in paragraph no.21 of the judgment held that prima facie opposite party no.2 appears economically able to maintain herself, partly but concluded that the issue no.3 is decided partly in favour of the opposite party no.2, therefore, this finding of the trial court is also perverse and against the record.
9. Accordingly, the instant revision is party allowed. So far as the judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 11 of 2021 (Priti Verma and two others Vs. Arvind Verma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Hafijganj, District Bareilly qua the opposite party no.2 is set aside. So far as the finding of the trial court qua the opposite party nos.3 and 4, namely, Ashray Verma and Aryan Verma, both minor sons of the revisionist, are hereby affirmed.
10. The trial court is expected to decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. finally, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it.
11. It is made clear that the trial court would be at liberty to decide the matter afresh by taking additional evidence, if required, without being influenced by any of the observations made herinabove.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 15, 2025
Prajapati RK
