Dismissed¶16

Awasthi Pankaj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2025CRLR/134/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision dismissed; Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month upheld; Family Court Raebareli order dated 23.12.2024 not interfered with; advocate-revisionist's plea of inadequate financial capacity rejected for want of evidence beyond affidavit; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act legal-expense award of Rs. 15,000/- held irrelevant to Section 125 proceedings; Lucknow Bench, Alok Mathur J.; keywords: maintenance, Section 125 CrPC, Section 24 HMA, revisionist advocate, meagre maintenance, dismissal.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision was dismissed and the Family Court's maintenance order of Rs. 2000/- per month stands undisturbed. ¶16

Awasthi Pankaj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision was dismissed and the Family Court's maintenance order of Rs. 2000/- per month stands undisturbed.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's order dated 23.12.2024 awarding maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. calls for interference on the ground of the revisionist's claimed insufficiency of income and financial resources. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

There is no material on record to demonstrate the financial resources of the revisionist except his own statement on affidavit; accordingly the Court finds no cogent reason to interfere with the trial court's order.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Since the revisionist is an Advocate practising in the Civil Court, it is not believable that he lacks the financial capacity to pay Rs. 2000/- to his wife.

¶14

Key takeaways

The order passed under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act is for legal expenses, is not in the shape of maintenance, and therefore has no bearing on proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.ratio¶16
After considering the entire facts and legal provisions, the Court found no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court; no other ground was urged, and the revision being bereft of merits was dismissed.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.). Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2025 was filed by Awasthi Pankaj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi, a practising advocate, against the order dated 23.12.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli in Case No. 902/2022 granting his wife (respondent No. 2, Smt. Anuradha Dwivedi, living separately with no other support) maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Grounds urged were the revisionist's claimed insufficient income and an existing Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act award of Rs. 15,000/- for legal expenses. The Court found no material on record, save the revisionist's own affidavit, demonstrating lack of resources; held it unbelievable that an advocate in practice could not pay the meagre sum; held the Section 24 legal-expenses order bore no relation to Section 125 proceedings; and dismissed the revision. Order date: 20.3.2025.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16031

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 134 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Awasthi Pankaj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay,Amit Kumar Pal,Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Punit Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

By means of present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family court, Raebareli in Case No. 902/2022 (Smt. Anuradha Dwivedi Vs. Awasthi Pankj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. granting maintenance for Rs. 2000/- per month.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist is a practicing advocate in the Civil Court, Lucknow and does not have sufficient income so as to pay the amount directed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Reabareli.

¶10

Apart from the above, it has been submitted that in proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was directed to be granted to the respondent No. 2 who is the wife of the revisionist for legal expenses.

¶11

According to the revisionist, the said amount has already been granted and in the aforesaid circumstances, he submits that he does not have resources to pay the said amount and further time may be granted to the revisionist to pay the said amount.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision and has submitted that Rs. 2000/- per month is a very meagre amount which has been granted by the trial court in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has further been stated that trial court has also considered the contention of the revisionist as well as taken into account various legal provisions and accordingly submits that no interference is required to be made

¶13

in the impugned order.

¶14

I have heard rival contention of the parties. It is noticed that revisionist is practicing advocate in the Civil Court while respondent No. 2 is his legally wedded wife who is living separately and she does not have any other person to support her inasmuch as her father is also expired and in the aforesaid circumstances has made an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The trial court has awarded an amount of Rs. 2000/- by order dated 23.12.2024 which in any case is a very meagre amount which has been contested by the petitioner in the present proceeding.The only reason for filing the present revision is the lack of financial resources of the revisionist. The revisionist is an Advocate in the Civil Court and therefore it is not believable that he would not have financial capacity to pay Rs, 2000/- to his wife, while the private respondent has stated that he is earning between Rs. 50,000/- - Rs. 60,000/- per month.

¶15

There is no material on record to demonstrate the financial resources of the revisionist except his statement on affidavit. accordingly this Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere in teh order of the trial court.

¶16

After considering the entire facts as well as legal provisions, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is for legal expenses which has been passed in favour of respondent No. 2 and is not in the shape of maintenance which may have any bearing in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. No other ground has been urged on behalf of the revisionist for assailing the order impugned. Accordingly, the present revisionist is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 20.3.2025

¶19

Ravi/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Awasthi Pankaj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awasthi Pankaj Veer Prakash @ Pankaj Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arif vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sona Devi @ Sonpati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Maisar Ali @ Mahassar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ram Milan Singh Chauhan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another