Pushp Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116660

Court No. - 84

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1845 of 2025

Revisionist :- Pushp Kumar Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhishek Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been moved with prayer to quash the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.948 of 2022 (CNR No.UPSH020020912022) (Smt. Kusum Debey & another vs. Pushp Kumar Dixit) under Section 127 Cr.P.C., Police Station Rauza, District Shahjahanpur and also prays to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 31.01.2025.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party nos.2 & 3 are wife and daughter of the revisionist who is living with her mother. Further submits that on the application of wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance amount was allowed and fixed at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of daughter by order dated 20.10.2010. She filed an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount of maintenance which was allowed by learned trial court by order dated 31.01.2025 and amount of maintenance Rs.2000/- per month was enhanced to Rs.7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month was enhanced to extent of Rs.5000/- per month in favour of daughter, total Rs.12,000/- per month. This amount is excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist since he has retired from Army and has no additional income and gets pension Rs.28,000/- per month. He also submits that he has taken loan form the bank for which E.M.I. Rs.8767/- per month is also to be paid by him, therefore, request to reduce the amount so fixed by the learned trial court and allow the revision.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the wife/opposite party no.2 is living separate from

¶10

him with her daughter who is unmarried and continuing her studies. There is no any source of income either to the wife or to the daughter. The revisionist gets monthly pension Rs.28,026/- per month and he also works as guard in L.I.C. and makes additional income. The amount of Rs.7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.5000/- per month in favour of daughter continuing her higher studies cannot be said to be excessive or more than paying capacity of the revisionist.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court and the amount so fixed for the maintenance of wife and daughter cannot be said to be excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the husband/revisionist, therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned trial court.

¶12

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushp Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushp Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manesh Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satendra Alias Seetu vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhupendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Gulfsha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another