Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137424

Court No. - 84

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2398 of 2025

Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Harshit Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, 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 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2024 (Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 27.02.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 45 of 2021 (Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. Dinesh Kumar and others, under Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Konch, District Jalaun.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife who is living separate from him and filed an application under Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. An application under Section 23 of the Act was also moved for interim maintenance which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.02.2024 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of wife/opposite party no. 2 who is living separate with minor daughter. Further submitted that the revisionist works as labourer and has no any regular source of income. The learned trial court has assessed his income to be Rs. 10,000/- per month on the basis of wages @ Rs. 300/- to 400/- per day out of which Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of wife is excessive and beyond paying capacity of the revisionist. The wife/opposite party no. 2 works in a factory and makes income that is sufficient to maintain herself and minor daughter. The learned trial court has not considered this fact but fixed the amount as aforesaid. He filed an appeal before the learned court of Sessions against that order but it was also dismissed. The wife/opposite party no. 2 is living in

¶9

adulterous relation but this fact was also not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while deciding the application under Section 23 of the Act, therefore, request to set aside the orders passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court and reduce the amount.

¶10

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

¶11

On 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 orders passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist and there are three children from the wedlock, one is aged about 20 years, other son is aged about 15 years and a daughter is aged about 7 years. Now two minor children are living with the wife/opposite party no. 2. She has made allegations against the revisionist and other members of his family regarding misbehaviour that is the reason she is living apart from him. Admittedly, she earns Rs. 3500/- per month by working and she is living in rented house with her two children, one son and other daughter, those are minor. The amount Rs. 3500/- per month cannot be said to be sufficient for maintenance of three persons. The revisionist himself has stated that he is working as labourer and learned trial court has assessed his income to be Rs. 10,000/- per month as such and fixed the amount Rs. 3000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of wife/opposite party no. 2 who is living with two minor children born from the wedlock. The learned appellate court has considered all these facts and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.03.2025. There is no any such material on record to establish that the wife is living in adultery. She is working somewhere and she is with some persons. It cannot infer that she is living in adultery but presence of persons is natural on work place. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶12

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Anurag Singh

¶14

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

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digambar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kaynat and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Gagan Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Manju vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kumar vs State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home) and Another

Kaleedeen Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 2 Others