Dismissed¶11

Mahesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2025CRLR/2146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance enhancement; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Section 127 Cr.P.C.; Family Court Sambhal; Principal Judge; paying capacity; no regular income; able-bodied revisionist; ambulance driver; wife living apart with sufficient cause; minor son class 6th education; Rs. 5000 wife; Rs. 3000 minor son; total Rs. 8000; revision dismissed at admission stage; Criminal Revision No. 2146 of 2025; 2025:AHC:115506; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; Order Date 17.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision was dismissed at the admission stage. ¶11

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision was dismissed at the admission stage.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 18.03.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal enhancing maintenance to Rs. 5000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 3000/- per month for the minor son suffers from illegality or impropriety and exceeds the revisionist's paying capacity, warranting reduction or setting aside.

¶8

Court's answer

The wife makes no income and is unable to maintain herself and the minor son; the revisionist, an able-bodied person said to drive an ambulance, is under legal obligation to maintain his wife who is living apart from him with sufficient cause.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The amount of Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of the minor child for maintenance and education cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient, and likewise the amount of Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of the wife is also not excessive.

¶11

Key takeaways

There appears no illegality or impropriety in passing the order dated 18.03.2025; the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.) — Criminal Revision No. 2146 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:115506), decided 17.7.2025. Mahesh, the revisionist, challenged the judgment and order dated 18.03.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal (Case No. 224 of 2024, arising out of Case No. 876 of 2016, Section 125 Cr.P.C.), which had enhanced maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 5000/- per month for his wife and from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3000/- per month for his 14-year-old minor son (total Rs. 8000/-), on the plea that he had no regular income and the amounts exceeded his paying capacity. The Court held that the wife makes no income and cannot maintain herself or the child; the revisionist, an able-bodied person said to drive an ambulance, is under legal obligation to maintain his wife who lives apart with sufficient cause; the son, studying in class 6th, needs the amount for maintenance and education. The enhanced amounts were held not excessive, no illegality or impropriety was found in the impugned order, and the revision was dismissed at the admission stage.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115506

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2146 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Mahesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal in Case No. 224 of 2024 (Smt. Somwati and another Vs. Mahesh) arising out of Case No. 876 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist and opposite party no. 3 is minor son who is aged about 14 years. The opposite party no. 2 is living apart from him without any sufficient reason and she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided vide order dated 16.03.2019 fixing the amount of Rs. 2500/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 1000/- per month in favour of minor son. Later on, she filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount of maintenance which was also allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 18.3.2025 and the amount has been enhanced and fixed Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of minor son, total Rs. 8000/-. It is also submitted that he has not any regular income and the amount so fixed by the learned trial court is beyond his paying capacity, therefore, request to reduce the amount as fixed by the learned trial court and allow the revision.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the wife does not

¶11

make any income and is unable to maintain herself and also the minor son. On the other hand, the revisionist is able bodied person, said to drive an ambulance, is under legal obligation to maintain his wife who is living apart from him with sufficient cause. Now the minor son is studying in class 6th, therefore, the amount of Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of minor child for maintenance and education cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Likewise, the amount of Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife are also not excessive. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in passing the order dated 18.03.2025 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

¶12

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Anurag Singh

¶14

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

Mahesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases