Sanjay Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025CRLR/1099/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLR 1099 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manjive Shukla; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Section 128 Cr.P.C.; interim maintenance recovery; Criminal Case No.502 of 2018; Rajni Upadhyaya vs. Sanjay Kumar Gaur; objections before Family Court; disposed of 08.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the revisionist to file objections against the Section 128 Cr.P.C. application of Opposite Parties No.2, 3 and 4 within two weeks; the Family Court concerned directed to decide those objections first before proceeding with any recovery from the revisionist. ¶¶16

Sanjay Kumar Gaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether, after the final order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 24.08.2024 held that Opposite Party No.2 is not entitled to maintenance and Opposite Party No.3 ceased to be entitled on attaining majority, the Family Court has any occasion to proceed with recovery of the interim maintenance directed vide order dated 05.05.2018 through the application under Section 128 Cr.P.C.

¶¶10

Court's answer

This criminal revision is disposed of with liberty to the revisionist to file objections against the application filed by Opposite Parties No.2, 3 and 4 under Section 128 Cr.P.C. within two weeks.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

If such objections are filed, the Family Court concerned is directed to consider and decide the objections first and only thereafter proceed to make recovery, if any, from the revisionist.

¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRLR No. 1099 of 2025, Lucknow Bench) — disposed of by Manjive Shukla, J. on 08.10.2025. Interim maintenance to Opposite Parties No.2, 3 and 4 had been ordered on 05.05.2018 in Criminal Case No.502 of 2018 (Rajni Upadhyaya and others vs. Sanjay Kumar Gaur); the Section 125 Cr.P.C. case was finally decided on 24.08.2024 holding the wife not entitled and the daughter ceasing to be entitled on attaining majority. Opposite Parties No.2, 3 and 4 thereafter filed a Section 128 Cr.P.C. application before the Family Court for recovery of the interim maintenance. The revisionist contended there was no occasion for recovery; the High Court did not adjudicate that contention on the merits, but gave the revisionist liberty to file objections against the Section 128 Cr.P.C. application within two weeks and directed the Family Court concerned to consider and decide those objections first before proceeding to make any recovery.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1099 of 2025

Sanjay Kumar Gaur

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, Virijendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶10

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that initially vide order dated 05.05.2018, passed in Criminal Case No.502 of 2018; Rajni Upadhyaya and others vs. Sanjay Kumar Gaur, direction was issued for payment of interim maintenance to Opposite Parties No.2, 3 and 4 but later on the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself had been finally decided vide order dated 24.08.2024 wherein, it had been held that Opposite Party No.2 is not entitled for any maintenance and Opposite Party No.3 from the date she attained the age of majority had seized to be entitled for maintenance. It has further been contended that once, in the final order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it had been held that Opposite Party No.2 i.e. wife is not entitled for any maintenance, there is no occasion for the Family Court to proceed for the recovery of amount of interim maintenance directed vide order dated 05.05.2018.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that Opposite Parties No.2,3 and 4 have filed an application before the Family Court under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for the recovery of amount of interim maintenance.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and I find that if the revisionist has any grievance, he can file

¶13

CRLR No. 1099 of 2025

¶14

¶15

his objections before the Family Court concerned against the application filed under Section 128 Cr.P.C and thereafter, the Family Court shall decide the objections raised by the revisionist.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is disposed of with liberty to the revisionist to file objections against the application filed by Opposite Parties No.2,3 and 4 under Section 128 Cr.P.C., within a period of two weeks from today and if the said objections are filed, the learned Family Court concerned is hereby directed to consider and decide the said objections first and thereafter to proceed to make recovery, if any, from the revisionist.

¶17

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶18

October 8, 2025

¶19

Renu/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile Delinquent 'F' Thru. His Real Brother-in-Law and Guardian Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Juvenile Delinquent 'F' Thru. His Real Brother-in-Law and Guardian Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile Delinquent 'F' Thru. His Real Brother-in-Law and Guardian Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Mohd. Salim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Gaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Puspa Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Lko and Another