Disposed¶13

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

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2025CRLR/2913/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision, interim maintenance, Section 125 Cr.P.C., Family Court Mahoba, maintenance from date of application not date of order, Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, Section 127 Cr.P.C. variation, Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act divorce pending, beldar daily wages Rs.400, parentage admission DW-2 grandson, Kaleedeen Prajapati, Smt. Jyoti @ Rucha, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:139852, Order Date 18.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist did not deny the child's parentage before the trial court; he himself admitted having a son and his father (DW-2) admitted having a grandson, so the child's entitlement stands. ¶11

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's order dated 30.04.2025 fixing interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month for the wife and Rs.2000/- per month for the minor child was illegal and excessive relative to the revisionist's paying capacity, requiring it to be set aside. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

On the revisionist's admitted earnings of Rs.400/- per day as a beldar (monthly income about Rs.12,000/-), the maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month for the wife and minor child cannot be said to be excessive.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist did not deny the child's parentage before the trial court; he himself admitted having a son and his father (DW-2) admitted having a grandson, so the child's entitlement stands.

¶11

Key takeaways

Maintenance must be paid from the date of application, not from the date of order, in accordance with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.ratio¶11
The wife and the minor child are living separate from the revisionist due to his neglect, on account of which the trial court allowed the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application.ratio¶11
There is no illegality or impropriety in the trial court's order dated 30.04.2025 and it requires no interference by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.) disposed of Criminal Revision No.2913 of 2025 (Kaleedeen Prajapati v. State of U.P. and others) at the admission stage itself, declining to interfere with the order dated 30.04.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Maintenance Case No.130 of 2019, which awarded interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of Rs.4000/- per month to the wife (opposite party no.2, Smt. Jyoti @ Rucha) and Rs.2000/- per month to the minor child (opposite party no.3), totalling Rs.6000/- per month from the date of application. The Court held that although the child was born just after five months of the 2018 marriage, the revisionist admitted having a son and his father (DW-2) admitted a grandson, so parentage was not denied; the wife and child were living separate due to the revisionist's neglect; and on his admitted earnings of Rs.400/- per day as a beldar (about Rs.12,000/- per month), the maintenance was not excessive. Relying on Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court affirmed that maintenance is payable from the date of application, not the date of order, and observed that if a decree under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act (pending divorce suit) is obtained, the revisionist may seek variation under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139852

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2913 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Kaleedeen Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Meera,Nabi Ullah 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 material on record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and to set aside the judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Maintenance Case No.130 of 2019 (Smt. Jyoti @ Rucha and another vs. Kalideen Prajapati) by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba passed the order by awarding a very huge amount in Interim Maintenance Application No.130 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance amount to the opposite party no.2 Rs.4000/- and also to the opposite party no.3 Rs.2000/-, total Rs.6000/- per month from the date of application on every 10th day of English calendar month.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is minor child of the revisionist. Further submitted that the marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2018 and the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage since she gave birth to a child just after five months from the date of marriage. He also submits that he has already filed a case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act for divorce stating the aforesaid facts which is still pending. He also made plea regarding this fact but the learned trial court has not considered the same and passed the order dated 30.04.2025 illegally fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.2000/- per month in favour of child from the date of application whereas it must be from the date of order. He also submits that the revisionist works as a labourer and has no sufficient income to make payment of the amount so fixed by the learned trial court which is excessive and beyond his paying capacity, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the

¶9

learned trial court and allow the revision.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A, perusal of record and the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2018. The opposite party no.3/the child was born to the opposite party no.2 regarding which the revisionist stated that it was born just after five months from the date of the marriage which indicates that it was not from the wedlock with the opposite party no.2. In this regard, the learned trial court has recorded its finding clearly while determining the point no.1 & 2 in which the revisionist himself has admitted that he has a son. The father of the revisionist was also examined as DW-2 who also admitted that he had a grandson. In this way, the revisionist has not denied the parentage in clear words before the learned trial court. So far as the case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it is also pending and this fact is to be decided. The wife and the minor child are living separate from him due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, therefore, the learned trial court has allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month in favour wife and Rs.2000/per month in favour of minor child from the date of application. The revisionist has also admitted during his cross-examination that he works as beldar and earns Rs.400/- per day it also shows that his monthly income is about Rs.12,000/- per month out of which Rs.6000/- per month in favour of wife and minor child cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. The amount of maintenance is also to be given from the date of application not from the date of order as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court.

¶12

In case the decree u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act is passed in favour of the revisionist he will have an option to get the order varied and modified u/s 127 Cr.P.C. as the case may be.

¶13

Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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