Smt. Rajni and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1678 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Rajni And 2 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Deepankar Shukla, Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 84

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. Notice has been served on opposite party no.2, but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.

¶9

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya in Case No. 05 of 2020 (Smt. Rajni and other Versus Ajay), under Section 125 Cr. P.C.,Police Station Auraiya, District Auraiya, whereby he allowed the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by the revisionist no.1 and awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.1500/- each to revisionist nos. 2 and 3 (total Rs. 3500), which is very low.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that in this case revisionist no.1 is wife of opposite party no.2 and revisionist nos. 2 and 3 are minor children. He further submitted that due to neglect of opposite party no.2, an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was filed by revisionist no.1, which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.12.2024 fixed Rs. 500/- per month in favour of revisionist no.1 and Rs. 1500/- for each in favour of both minor children, the revisionist nos. 2 and 3 that is meager and in sufficient. He also submitted that opposite party no.2 is a driver and plys Mahendra Pick Up and gets Rs. 30,000 per month. He also submitted that if the opposite party no.2 is supposed to be working as

¶11

CRLR No. 1678 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

labourer, he may be able to earn Rs. 400-500/- per day and in a month he will get Rs. 12,000 to 15,000 and out of which amount of maintenance as fixed by the learned trial court is dis-proportionate and less than sufficient, therefore, same is liable to be increased.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute that the said amount as fixed by the learned trial court, is not sufficient for the maintenance to the wife and minor children.

¶15

On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 20.12.2024, it appears that opposite party no.2 has stated that he made income of Rs. 6000/- per month but it cannot be accepted since a labourer gets Rs. 400-500/- per day and in a month he will get Rs. 12,000/- to 15,000/- per month. The amount of Rs. 500/- per month fixed in favour of wife, is very meager and cannot be said to be sufficient for her maintenance.

¶16

In the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial court in favour of wife is liable to be increased. Thus, the amount is increased in favour of wife to Rs. 3000/- per month in place of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of application and in favour of both the minor children it will remain the same.

¶17

Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed .

¶18

September 4, 2025

¶19

T.S.

¶20

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Rajni and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajni and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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