Siddharth Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145997

Court No. - 91

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2049 of 2024

Revisionist :- Siddharth Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashvanee Kumar Srivastav,Vishal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

As per office report dated 25.04.2025, the service upon opposite party no. 2 has been affected through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

¶8

List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, despite service of notice.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Case No. 349 of 2021, Computerized Case No. UPMOO20008862021 (Smt. Shikha Saxena vs. Siddharth Saxena), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the present revision has been filed. By the said order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad has awarded a maintenance amount to opposite party no. 2 segregating the amount to Rs. 6000/- per month, which according to learned counsel for the revisionist is excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that, while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.2.2024 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad did not consider the various facts, i.e. the educational qualification of opposite party no. 2 and her earnings. She is a well qualified lady and she is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month, but nothing has been brought on record, such any document or any documentary evidence regarding her income. He further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has filed several criminal cases

¶12

against him and the revisionist is facing criminal trial in respect of those criminal cases. He also submitted that despite making all possible efforts, the opposite party no. 2 refused to stay with the revisionist, while the revisionist is ever ready to keep her in his matrimonial house.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that, so far as the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad is concerned, the same is perfectly valid and in accordance with law and no illegality or irregularity, whatsoever has been committed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, hence no interference is required by this Court for setting aside the order dated 15.2.2024. He further submitted that, so far as the maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- is concerned, the same is bare minimum, which is not sufficient to carry out the bread and butter. The opposite party no. 2 is staying with her parents and is depending upon her parental house and guardianship. He further submitted that the said amount being so minimum, it is difficult to even carry out the day to day requirement of food and necessity items for survival and submitted that the amount of maintenance be enhanced to twice the amount of Rs. 6000/- and further prayed that the said revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

While passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad also referred various cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, LAWS(SC) 2020(11), Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and Ors., (2025) 6 SCC 353, Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai AIR 2008 (SC) 530, Shailja & Anr. vs. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, Sunita Kashwaha vs. Anil Kachwaha (AIR (SC) 2015 page 554, Sunita Manoj Singh vs. State of Maharashtra RCR (Crl.) 2021 (3) 839 and Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan AIR 2015 (SC) 2025 .

¶15

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments raised on behalf of both the sides, stated in the foregoing paras, as much as the income of the revisionist has been stated to be sufficient to pay the said amount of maintenance to opposite party no. 2, as opposite party no. 2 is an unemployed lady and has no source of income at her end, this Court finds that the amount of maintenance passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad appears to be reasonable, adequate and justified and calls for no interference by this Court.

¶16

There is no merits in the present revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 23.8.2025/Faridul

¶17

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

Siddharth Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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