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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the revisionist; the prayer to set aside the Family Court order dated 17.02.2024 was refused. However, it was observed that any future application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on the basis of changed circumstances shall be heard and decided by the trial court expeditiously in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court, Ghaziabad erred in rejecting the revisionist's application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. seeking cessation of the interim maintenance awarded to opposite party no. 2, on the ground that she was not willing to reside with the revisionist despite the compromise. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court proceeded on the trial court's recorded finding that the question whether opposite party no. 2 is living separately cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage and shall be decided finally on merits after due appreciation of evidence, causing no prejudice to the revisionist.

Ratio / Principle

On the above premise, the impugned order dated 17.02.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and calls for no interference by this Court.

Key takeaways

The criminal revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶17
Upon the revisionist counsel's prayer, it was observed that if the revisionist files an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on the basis of changed circumstances, the trial court shall hear and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law (a conditional direction as to a hypothetical future proceeding, not necessary to the dismissal).obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision dismissed (Allahabad High Court, Madan Pal Singh, J.; decided 17.10.2025) — Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. — Interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- (total) had been awarded to the wife (opposite party no. 2) and her daughter. After an unwritten compromise in the chamber of the Presiding Officer, the husband applied under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. alleging that the wife refused to reside with him and lived separately without reason. The Family Court, Ghaziabad (order dated 17.02.2024) rejected the application, recording that mere non-compliance with the terms of a compromise does not permit the court to presume that the wife is unwilling to reside with her husband, and that the issue would be decided finally on merits after due appreciation of evidence. The High Court found the impugned order free from illegality or infirmity, declined interference and dismissed the revision as devoid of merits, while directing that any future application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on changed circumstances be heard and decided expeditiously by the trial court in accordance with law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2445 of 2024

Nitin Agarwal

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Pankaj Agarwal, Utkarshni Singh : G.A.
Court No.- 89

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to press the present revision.

Heard Sri Shivam Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record .

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad in Case No. 192 of 2022 (Priynaka Bansal Vs. Nitin Agrwal), whereby the trial court has rejected the Application 29-B filed by the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C.

The brief of facts of the present case are that the opposite party nos. 2 was filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which, the interim maintenance was awarded in favour of opposite party no. 2 along with her daughter of Rs. 30,000/- in total. Subsequently a compromise was made between the parties in the chamber of Presiding Officer before the trial court, wherein parties were agreed to reside with each other and the revisionist is ready to take her back in the rented house, however, this agreement was not in written but the revisionist has taken rented house even though the opposite party no.2 had not ready to live with the revisionist. On the basis of that revisionist has moved an application under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. before the trial court that the opposite party no.2 is not ready to live with the revisionist and residing separately without any reason, the said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 17.02.2024. Hence the present criminal revision before this Court.

CRLR No. 2445 of 2024

2

A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.02.2024 reflects that the trial court, in paragraph no. 5, has recorded a specific finding merely on the basis of the compromise, observing that if one of the parties does not comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise, the trial court cannot presume that she is not willing to reside with her husband. The trial court has further recorded that this issue shall be decided finally on merits after due appreciation of evidence.

Since the trial court has recorded its finding that the issue regarding living separately by the opposite party no.2 cannot be decided at this stage and shall be decided finally on merits after due appreciation of evidence and no prejudice would be caused to the revisionist.

On the above premise, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and calls for no interference by this Court.

The criminal revision is devoid of merits and, is accordingly, dismissed.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in case, revisionist files application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on the basis of changed circumstances, the same shall be heard and decided by the trial court expeditiously in accordance with law.

October 17, 2025

Akbar

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad