Vikas Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1610 of 2025

Vikas Kumar		.....Revisionist(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Anand Pati Tiwari Krishna Dutt Awasthi, G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 90

¶5

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya. By the said order dated 05.03.2025, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to opposite party no. 3, as interim maintenance to be paid to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 by her own free will and volition has left her matrimonial home and to substantiate his argument, the statement given by the minor son of the couple was also referred, wherein the child has one way or other supported the case of his father, as the child is living along with his father and away from the mother. He further submitted that the opposite party, No. 2, was not ready to join the revisionist, but added that the other party, No. 2, refused to go along with revisionist and further stated that she was not yet ready to go with the revisionist. However, it is unclear as to how and when the right time and conditions will arise for them to join together.He further submitted that the revisionist is taking care of his elder son and the younger son is staying with opposite party no. 2. He also

¶10

CRLR No. 1610 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

submitted that some allegations have been made against the opposite party no. 2, that she was in contact with some other male person via telephone etc. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has passed the order beyond the fact and evidence on record and did not consider the factual aspects submitted on behalf of the revisionist and therefore the order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel also submitted , that the Principal Judge of the Family Court was convinced with the principle of women's rights in Indian society and he emphasized on the well-being of women in Indian society and recognized the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to opposite party no. 3, i.e. the minor son of opposite party no. 2, which is bare minimum as the revisionist is a government teacher and he is earning a sufficient salary and if the amount of maintenance combined together, i.e. Rs. 8,000/-, the same is much less than 1/4th of the salary of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee nandy passed in Civil Appeal No. 5369 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34653 of 2016), decided on 19.04.2017, AIR2017SC2383 , in which it has been held, that even if the amount of monthly maintenance is to be fixed as 1/4th of the salary of the employee, the same shall suffice and it shall be presumed to be adequate and so far as, the monthly maintenance is concerned, the same may be permitted to be awarded as 1/4th of the salary of the employee.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 furher submitted that the revisionist is having illicit relations with some other lady (name not disclosed) and for that reason, the opposite party no. 2 is not ready to join the company of the revisionist. The said fact came to the knowledge of opposite party no. 2 during the course of mediation between the parties. During the course of mediation, the revisionist refused to join with the opposite party, No. 2, or to come together, but the revisionist flatly

¶15

CRLR No. 1610 of 2025

¶16

3

¶17

refused to do so. He further submitted that the younger son, who is staying with opposite party no. 2 and she is taking care of him and also bearing his educational and other day to day expenses. She is discharging her duty and the responsibility as mother. He also submitted that opposite party no. 2 is an unemployed lady and she has no source of income and she is residing at her parental home and has no accommodation on her own credit and further submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya is in accordance with law and calls for no interference by this Court.

¶18

Having considered the rival contentions and after going through the order dated 5.3.2025 passed by learned learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiyat, it is a matter of record, that the couple is having two minor sons, the elder son is staying with revisionist and the younger son is staying with opposite party no. 2. It is also a matter of record that the revisionist is a Government Teacher and is drawing salary, as per his Pay Matrix Level, but he is a Primary Teacher, though the salary slip of the revisionist is not on record. It is also a matter of fact that, there is some matrimonial discord between the parties and the matrimonial discord led to the stage that both have levelled allegations against each other in respect of personal conduct etc. As far as the order passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Auraiya is concerned, the Principal Judge, Family Court has passed the order keeping in mind the status of a woman in the Indian society, the spirit of the Constitution and, the law on the subject and the various aspects of the legal position and procedure. The order has been passed accordingly. As far as the thought and conclusion being arrived at by learned Additional Principal Judge with regard to the status of women, her welfare and the financial condition, no infirmity can be found in the said order of maintenance, dated 5.3.2024 and the same appears to be in accordance with law and calls for no interference.

¶19

The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

It is made clear that Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh), which was to be paid to the other party No. 2 during the course of mediation, will be paid to the opposite party No. 2 by way of draft during the course of mediation. If the said draft is outdated, the revisionist is responsible for

¶21

CRLR No. 1610 of 2025

¶22

4

¶23

renewing the said draft, failing which the consequences would follow. In case, the other party is able to take draft renewed, then will be free to proceed accordingly. If the said draft is outdated, the responsibility of renewing the draft would be that of revisionist, failing which the consequences would follow. In the event, the opposite party no. 2 is able to take draft and she will be free to proceed accordingly.

¶24

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶25

November 25, 2025 Faridul

¶26

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

M/S Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Others vs Union of India and Another

Devpratap @ Raju vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoz and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushal Kishor vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shiv Kumar Shakya @ Shivkumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushal Kishor vs State of U.P. and 8 Others