Dismissed¶9

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2025CRLR/1188/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1188 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2025:AHC:2736), decided 7.1.2025 by Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. Keywords: Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; unmarried daughter entitled to maintenance till marriage despite attaining majority during pendency; maintenance from date of filing of application; Rajnish v. Neha AIR 2021 SC 569; Principal Judge Family Court Ghazipur; Maintenance Case No. 332 of 2020; Rs. 4000/- per month total (Rs. 2000/- wife, Rs. 1000/- each daughter); adultery allegation unsupported by evidence; CD/electronic evidence not produced; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the revisionist; the Family Court's maintenance direction stands undisturbed. ¶9

Ajay Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the revisionist; the Family Court's maintenance direction stands undisturbed.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's factual findings - that the applicants (wife and daughters) had no independent source of income and that the revisionist was able-bodied, possessed agricultural land and was capable of earning - and the maintenance awarded thereon warrant interference in revision. +3 more

¶6

Court's answer

The trial court's findings of fact - that the applicants have no independent source of income and that the revisionist is able-bodied, possesses agricultural land and is capable of earning sufficiently to maintain his wife and daughters - are based on evidence on record and warrant no interference in the criminal revision.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a daughter without an independent source of income is entitled to maintenance from her father till her marriage; attainment of majority during the pendency of the revision does not extinguish this entitlement, which continues until she is married.

¶7

Key takeaways

Following Rajnish v. Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569), maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing of the application; consequently there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order directing payment from the date of the application dated 22.11.2016.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 1188 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.; neutral citation 2025:AHC:2736; order dated 7.1.2025) - dismissed. The revisionist Ajay Yadav challenged the judgement and order dated 9.1.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur in Maintenance Case No. 332 of 2020, directing him to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to applicant no. 1 (his wife) and Rs. 1000/- per month each to applicant nos. 2 and 3 (his daughters), totalling Rs. 4000/- monthly, payable from the application date 22.11.2016. Held: (i) the trial court's findings of fact - that the applicants had no independent income and that the revisionist, despite claiming to be a casual agricultural labourer, was able-bodied, possessed agricultural land and was capable of earning - warranted no interference; (ii) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. an unmarried daughter without independent income remains entitled to maintenance from her father even after attaining majority during the pendency of proceedings, until her marriage; and (iii) relying on Rajnish v. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569, maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing of the application, so the backdating to 22.11.2016 involved no illegality, irregularity or perversity. The adultery allegation against the wife was unsupported by evidence and the CD of telephonic conversation pleaded by the revisionist was never produced. Revision dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2736

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1188 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Ajay Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Nagendra Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Singh Yadav

¶6

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶7

Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 9.1.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur in Maintenance Case No. 332 of 2020 whereby revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- per month each to applicant nos. 2 and 3 who are minor daughters of applicant no. 1 and opposite party therefore the learned trial court awarded Rs. 4000/- as monthly maintenance to the applicants which is payable from the date of filing of application dated 22.11.2016.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned Principal Judge Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective while passing the impugned order dated 9.1.2024. The original applicant nos. 2 and 3 have now attained age of majority. Learned principal Judge has failed to appreciate this factual aspect of the matter. No evidence has been tendered by the applicants in respect of the earning income of the revisionist. Learned Principle Judge has directed payment of maintenance from the date of filing application in the impugned order without assigning any cogent reason which is not lawful. The allegation made by present respondent no. 2 against the revisionist that he is having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, is baseless and defamatory. In fact, respondent no. 2 having illicit relationship with one Sunil Gupta and on this account also she deserves no maintenance from the revisionist.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submitted that

¶11

revisionist is casual agricultural labour and he is not in a position to pay maintenance awarded in impugned order which is from the date of fling application. He also submitted that there is CD in his possession of the revisionist wherein recording of telephonic conversation between the parties, is preserved and this fact has been discussed in paragraph no. 11 of the impugned order but no opportunity was given to him to produce the same on record.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that revisionist has not paid any penny towards maintenance awarded to the applicants pursuant to impugned order. The revisionist has levelled baseless allegations against the respondent no. 2 regarding her identity. Learned trial court has rightly been observed in paragraph no. 11 of the impugned order that no evidence has been produced by the opposite party to prove this allegations that applicant no. 2 is living in adultery which might have disentitled her to seek maintenance. It is further submitted that in paragraph no. 11 of the impugned judgement, it is observed that revisionist has not filed the electronic evidence which is pleaded in his written statement at the stage of evidence recording. He lastly submitted that maintenance awarded in the impugned judgement is itself so less and hardly sufficient to mate out bear living needs of the applicants and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

¶13

Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material on record, keeping consideration with judgement under challenged and on the other hand the marriage of the revisionist and respondent no. 2 is admitted which took place in 1994 according to Hindu Marriage Act and the couple are blessed with two daughters who are still unmarried. The finding of fact accorded by learned trial court is based on evidence on record in which it is determined that the applicants are not having any independent source of income. The opposite party (revisionist) is abled person. He possessed some agricultural land also and he is capable to earn independently by engaging manual work, therefore, he supposed to have sufficient source of income to maintain the applicants who are his wife and minor daughters. The opposite party (revisionist) is ready to maintain his wife and daughter who are residing separately from him at the parental place of the applicant no. 1. These findings warrants no interference in the present criminal revision.

¶14

In Section 125 Cr.P.C. a daughter is entitled to receive maintenance from his father till her marriage if she is not

¶15

possessed of her independent source of income, therefore, even if applicant nos. 2 and 3 have attained the age of majority during pendency of present revision, they are still entitled to seek maintenance from her father until they are married.

¶16

Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Rajnish Vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 has held that maintenance shall be awarded from the date of filing of application in every case. Consequently, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶17

The revision is hereby dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 SY

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

C/M Chet Ram Sarju Prasad Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shrawasti Thru. Manager and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education, Lucknow and Others

Dr. Mohammad Talib vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mr. X, Thru. His Father (Natural Guardian) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Hareesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Mahendra Prasad and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Haider @ Altaf vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others