Recently, in a significant clarification on the scope of revisional powers in maintenance matters, the Allahabad High Court held that it cannot directly enhance or reduce maintenance while exercising revisional jurisdiction under criminal law. The Court examined whether a wife seeking higher maintenance through a revision petition could bypass the statutory mechanism meant for alteration of maintenance due to changed circumstances, while also underlining the limited supervisory role of the High Court in such proceedings.
The controversy began when a woman challenged a Family Court order granting her ₹2,500 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. She claimed that despite spending nearly ₹15 lakh on her marriage and facing alleged dowry harassment, sexual abuse by her brother-in-law, and eventual triple talaq over a phone call, the maintenance awarded was grossly inadequate.
Before the High Court, her counsel argued that her husband earned nearly ₹45,000 per month and sought an enhancement of maintenance to ₹30,000. The husband, however, denied all allegations and claimed that the parties had already divorced under Sharia law after payment of ₹5.60 lakh. He further contended that he survived on daily wage labour, earning barely ₹5,000 to ₹6,000 per month, while the wife herself earned through tutoring and embroidery work.
Justice Achal Sachdev observed that the High Court cannot reassess evidence or independently determine changed financial circumstances while hearing a revision plea. The Court stressed that revisional powers are supervisory in nature and not equivalent to appellate powers. The Bench stated, “The High Court cannot directly increase or decrease the maintenance amount in revision.”
The Court further noted that enhancement of maintenance necessarily requires examination of fresh evidence regarding increase in income, inflation, or changing needs of dependents, an exercise that can only be undertaken by the trial court under Section 127 of the CrPC or Section 146 of the BNSS.
Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the Family Court’s order and directed the wife to approach the concerned court through an alteration petition for enhancement of maintenance.
Case Title: Smt. Huda Khanam Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. - 5384 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Achal Sachdev
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Adil Jamal, Adv. Shabeh Jamal
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A., Mohammad Abid Ali
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
