Shyam Bihari vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2503 of 2024

Shyam Bihari	Versus	.....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Prashant Kumar Lal : G.A., Hari Om Sharan Chaturvedi	Tiwari, Shrikant

¶4

Court No. - 89

¶5

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

¶7

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 20th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Criminal Case No. 395 of 2019 (Vidyotma Vs. Shyam Bihari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the interim stay application filed in the instant application by opposite party no.2 has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 in second week of each calendar month from the date of passing of the impugned order.

¶8

The main and sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the amount of interim monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 is too excessive, exorbitant and not commensurate with the monthly income of the revisionist. The trial court while passing the impugned order has not appreciated the factum of the case and wrongly considered the documentary and oral evidence led before it. The trial court has also not decided the application of the revisionist filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned interim order passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. They also submit that the amount awarded by the trial court as interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive or incommensurate with the income of the revisionist. They

¶10

CRLR No. 2503 of 2024

¶11

2

¶12

lastly submits that since the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending there is no occasion for the trial court to decide the same at interim stage.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned interim order passed by the trial court, this Court finds that the impugned order is an interim order and the trial court only on the basis of prima facie case has passed the said order. From objection filed by the revisionist himself enclosed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit accompanying the present criminal revision, it reflects that the revisionist is working as Junior Telecom Officer in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and his monthly salary is about Rs. 70,000/-. Under such circumstances, this Court is prima facie opinion that the amount of interim maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned interim order is already on lower side and cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned interim order.

¶14

This Court may also record that the instant application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the trial court for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court. After filing of oral as well as documentary evidence and after trial proceedings, the trial court will decide as to whether the revisionist is entitled to get any maintenance allowance or not and as to how much amount is the revisionist entitled and also from which period is she awarded maintenance allowance along with other issues. This Court has also no room to doubt that the trial court before deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall decide first the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in accordance with the law on the basis of oral as well as documentary to be led during the course of trial.

¶15

Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the interim order impugned passed by the trial court.

¶16

The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

October 14, 2025 Sushil/-

¶18

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶19

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

Shyam Bihari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Bihari v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Parmanand vs State of U.P. and Another

Mujaffar Ali vs Smt. Shabnoor Khatoon

Suman Verma and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Mohd Irshad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others