Dismissed¶18

Sanjay Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025CRLR/3392/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.125 CrPC maintenance; criminal revision dismissed at admission stage; Allahabad High Court; Family Court Gorakhpur order dated 03.06.2025 upheld; wife living separately justified as husband kept another lady and Panchayat failed; able-bodied shopkeeper with regular income bound to maintain wife and minor children; Rs. 5000/- per month maintenance to wife from date of order not excessive; arrears limited from date of application to date of order; children now major; no illegality in quantum; Coram: Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; decided 18 September 2025.

What did the court decide?

The wife had sufficient reason to live separately: the revisionist started keeping some other lady with him, the dispute could not be settled in the Panchayat, and she lives apart with the two children in her maika. ¶17

Sanjay Verma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur fixing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside and the amount of maintenance reduced.

¶12

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist is an able-bodied shopkeeper (pots and jewellery, Belwar) with a regular source of income and is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children, who have no source of income for their maintenance.

¶17

Key takeaways

The maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month fixed in favour of the wife from the date of order cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient, particularly as the trial court confined the earlier amounts to the period from application to order and the children have become major.ratio¶17
No illegality or impropriety appears in the trial court's order; the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.) against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case No. 595 of 2019 (Maya Verma and others Vs. Sanjay Verma) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., fixing maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month for the wife, Rs. 2000/- per month for each minor child till majority, and Rs. 5000/- per month for the wife from the date of order. The revisionist contended the wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and prayed for setting aside the order and reducing the amount. Held: the wife had sufficient reason to live separately, as the revisionist kept another lady with him and the dispute could not be resolved in a Panchayat; the revisionist, an able-bodied shopkeeper of pots and jewellery at Belwar with a regular income, is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and children who have no independent source of income; the quantum fixed from the date of order is neither excessive nor more than sufficient, the trial court having already restricted the earlier amounts to the period between application and order. No illegality or impropriety was found; the revision was dismissed at the admission stage itself. Decided September 18, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3392 of 2025

Sanjay Verma

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Nandini Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Court No. - 84

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶10

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

¶11

The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case No. 595 of 2019 (Maya Verma and others Vs. Sanjay Verma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Gagha, District Gorakhpur.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party nos. 3 & 4 are minor children who have become major. The marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2002 and out of wedlock the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were born. Since the year 2016 she herself started misbehaving with the revisionist and other members of his family and went to live in her maika, leaving her matrimonial house. Further submitted that she made false allegations regarding keeping some other lady named, Anita. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance in the year 2019 which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 03.06.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance in favour of wife Rs. 3000/- per month, in favour of minor children Rs. 2000/- per month for each till their attaining majority and from the date of order Rs. 5000/- in favour of wife. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that the revisionist is living separate from him without any sufficient cause even though fixed the amount of maintenance, therefore, request to set aside the order and reduce the amount.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the revisionist is a shopkeeper and his shop is located in Belwar where he started keeping some other lady named Anita. The revisionist has not contradicted the statement of opposite party no. 2/wife in this regard during the course of examination before the learned trial court, this is the sufficient reason for wife to live separate from him.

¶14

CRLR No. 3392 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Panchayat was also held by the parents of the wife but the revisionist did not agree. Further contended that the amount so fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient but the learned trial court itself has granted consesion in favour of revisionist by fixing the amount in favour of wife and minor children from the date of application to the date of order. There is no any illegality in the order passed by learned trial court.

¶17

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 order passed by learned trial court, it appears that admittedly the marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was performed in the year 2002 and out of wedlock the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were born, now they have become major. The revisionist when started keeping some other lady with him, the dispute arose between the parties which could not be settled in the Panchayat, as a result the opposite party no. 2 is living apart form him with two minor children in her maika, this is the sufficient reason to live separate from him. The revisionist is a shop keeper of pots and jewellery located in Belwar, this shows that he makes regular income. Being able bodied person and having regular source of income, he is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children who have no any source of income for their maintenance. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of wife and minor children from the date of application to the date of order that is meager. Since the children/opposite party nos. 3 and 4 have become major as a result the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife only from the date of order, this can also not be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶18

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed .

¶19

September 18, 2025 Anurag Singh

¶20

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶21

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

Sanjay Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abid Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Singh vs State of Up and Another

Vishnu Dutt Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

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

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manjeet Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. and 2 Others