Smt Divya Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1172 of 2024

Versus Smt Divya Jaiswal And Another .....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Shri Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prateek Sinha
Court No.- 89

¶3

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶4

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

2.This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., questioning the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 443 of 2021 (Smt. Divya Jaiswal and another vs. Saurabh Jaiswal) under Section 127 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Judge, while allowing the application ex parte, directed the opposite party to pay an enhanced maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- per month to revisionist no.1 in place of Rs.8,000/- earlier, and Rs.6,000/per month to revisionist no.2 in place of Rs.3,000/- earlier, thereby increasing only Rs.4,000/- in total in favour of the revisionists after five years of the previous maintenance order.

¶6

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the amount enhanced by the learned Trial Court is meagre and not commensurate with the income of the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that revisionist no.2 is presently studying in Class XII and her educational expenses have considerably increased. It is argued that the enhanced amount of Rs.5,000/in total is grossly inadequate. He further submits that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was earlier allowed and maintenance was fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of revisionist no.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of revisionist no.2, which was subsequently reduced by this Court

¶7

CRLR No. 1172 of 2024

¶8

2

¶9

vide order dated 08.07.2019 to Rs.8,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month respectively. It is further contended that opposite party no.2 is the owner of two four-wheelers and is permanently employed as a Manager with Punjab National Bank Met Life Insurance. Despite the revisionists having filed documentary evidence regarding the ownership of two vehicles (Paper Nos. 78 and 79), no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party. The revisionists have also filed Income Tax Returns of the opposite party no.2 for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 showing gross total incomes of Rs.6,03,024/- and Rs.6,87,358/- respectively, and it is submitted that his income must have increased substantially in the subsequent years.

¶10

It is submitted that as the circumstances have changed, the revisionists filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on 22.02.2021, which was allowed, but the enhancement granted is nominal. The revisionists, therefore, pray for setting aside the order dated 06.02.2024 and for further enhancement of the maintenance amount.

¶11

5.Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 oppose the revision and submit that the opposite party no.2 is merely an insurance agent working on a commission basis and has no fixed source of income. It is further submitted that the enhancement made by the Trial Court vide order dated 06.02.2024 is excessive and requires interference by this Court.

¶12

6.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

In Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that maintenance allowance can be granted up to 25% of the net income of the husband. Considering the material on record, the annual income of the opposite party appears to be approximately Rs.6,00,000/-, which comes to Rs.15,000/- per month. The Trial Court has already fixed the total maintenance at Rs.15,000/- (Rs.9,000/- for revisionist no.1 and Rs.6,000/- for revisionist no.2). Hence, the amount awarded cannot be said to be inadequate or unjustified

¶14

It is, however, made clear that in the event of any change in circumstances or increase in expenses in future, the revisionists shall be at liberty to approach the Trial Court for further enhancement of the maintenance amount in accordance with law.

¶15

CRLR No. 1172 of 2024

¶16

3

¶17

9.The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

October 17, 2025

¶19

pks

¶20

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)