Dismissed¶16

Fazil Hussain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2025CRLR/177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; deserted/destitute wife; no independent income; ten years' non-payment admitted by counsel; Rs. 3,000/- p.m. from date of application and Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from date of order upheld; no illegality in Family Court order; criminal revision dismissed; Family Court Ayodhya order dated 06.12.2024 (Criminal Case No. 310 of 2015; Meraj Bano v. Sayed Fazil Hussain); Criminal Revision 177 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; decision date 12.2.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:9120.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal revision was dismissed and the Family Court maintenance order dated 06.12.2024 stands upheld. ¶16

Fazil Hussain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the criminal revision was dismissed and the Family Court maintenance order dated 06.12.2024 stands upheld.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the instant criminal revision should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2024 of the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya (maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 310 of 2015) set aside. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

There is no illegality in the impugned order; the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

It is not disputed that Respondent No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist; she has been living separately from him for sufficient cause, the revisionist failed to provide her financial support, she is destitute and unable to sustain herself, and she has no independent source of income.

¶13

Key takeaways

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist admitted that no financial assistance has been provided to Respondent No. 2 for the past ten years.ratio¶14
Considering these circumstances, this court held that the court below rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application and Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the impugned order.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 177 of 2025 (Neutral Cit. 2025:AHC-LKO:9120), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; decided 12.2.2025): Revision by the husband (Fazil Hussain) seeking setting-aside of the judgment/order dated 06.12.2024 of the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Criminal Case No. 310 of 2015 (Meraj Bano v. Sayed Fazil Hussain, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.), which awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application and Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the impugned order. The High Court found it undisputed that Respondent No. 2 is the legally wedded wife, living separately for sufficient cause, destitute, unable to sustain herself, with no independent income, and that counsel for the revisionist admitted no financial assistance had been provided for the past ten years. Finding no illegality in the impugned order and holding the court below's directions right, the revision was dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9120

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 177 of 2025 Revisionist :- Fazil Hussain

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Prabhakar Pandey,Syed Ahmad Mehdi

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶11

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant criminal revision, setting-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2024, passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Ayodhya in Criminal Case No. 310 of 2015; Meraj Bano Vs. Sayed Fazil Hussain, Under Section 125 Cr. P.C., relating to Police Station-Rudauli, District Ayodhya, as contained in Annexure no.1 to this criminal revision, in the interest of justice.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

Perusal of the record shows that it is not disputed that Respondent No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She has been living separately from the revisionist for sufficient cause. The revisionist has failed to provide financial support to opposite party No. 2, who is destitute and unable to sustain herself. She has no independent source of income.

¶14

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the revisionist admitted that no financial assistance has been

¶15

provided to Respondent No. 2 for the past ten years. Considering these circumstances, the learned court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application and Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the impugned order.

¶16

There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 12.2.2025 R.C.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Fazil Hussain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fazil Hussain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Satyam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Darbari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Monu Rathore and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Geeta Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ritesh Kumar @ Kallu @ Ritesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another