Dismissed¶18

Dilip Baranwal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2025CRLR/355/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; Criminal Revision No. 355 of 2025 dismissed; Family Court order dated 19-10-2024 unchallenged; quantum contested as exorbitant by BSF constable husband; abuse of process / delay tactic in maintenance payment; no proof of any payment made; reliance on Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2875 (sustenance, not animal-like existence); wife Rs.2,000/- p.m. lifelong and daughter Rs.2,000/- p.m. till majority from 19-10-2024, arrears at Rs.1,000/- p.m. each from 04.01.2020; Prashant Kumar, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

What did the court decide?

Filing of this revision is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and there is no merit in this revision. ¶16

Dilip Baranwal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court order dated 19-10-2024 awarding maintenance should be quashed on the ground that the amount is exorbitant and disproportionate to the revisionist's actual income and financial capacity, given his modest salary as a BSF constable, family responsibilities and medical expenses. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Filing of this revision is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and there is no merit in this revision.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings appear to have been initiated with the sole intention of not paying, or delaying the payment of, the maintenance amount to the wife and children.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prashant Kumar, J.), Criminal Revision No. 355 of 2025, decision dated 18.7.2025 — Dismissed. The revision challenged a Family Court order dated 19-10-2024 which, on the wife's application under S.125 Cr.P.C. filed on 04.01.2020 after she left the matrimonial home with the daughter amid matrimonial discord, awarded Rs.1,000/- per month each to the wife and daughter from the date of application till judgment, and Rs.2,000/- per month each from the date of judgment (wife: lifelong; daughter: until majority), with arrears to be cleared within three months and future maintenance payable by the 10th of each month. The revisionist, a Border Security Force constable drawing a modest salary, argued the amounts were exorbitant and disproportionate to his income, financial capacity, family responsibilities and medical expenses, and that no proper inquiry into his finances was made. The learned A.G.A. contended the order was passed after due consideration and that the revision was a ploy to delay payment, with no document produced showing any payment ever made. Relying on Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2875 (S.125 Cr.P.C. enacted so that a woman who has left or been thrown out of her matrimonial home can sustain herself and her children; sustenance means a life similar to that in the husband's house, not merely 'to lead the life of an animal'), the Court concluded that the revision was an abuse of the process of law lacking any merit, apparently initiated solely to avoid or delay payment of maintenance, and dismissed it, leaving the Family Court's maintenance order intact.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117472

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 355 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Dilip Baranwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

None appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.

¶8

Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents is present.

¶9

This is a case where opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the revisionist, and opposite party no. 3 is their daughter. Due to matrimonial discord, opposite party no. 2 left the matrimonial home along with her daughter and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The Family Court, vide order dated 19-10-2024, partly allowed the application and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the daughter from the date of the application (04.01.2020) till the date of judgment. Further, from the date of judgment (19-10-2024), the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 as lifelong maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the daughter until she attains the age of majority. The arrears were to be cleared within three months, and future maintenance was to be paid by the 10th day of each month. The said order has been challenged in the present revision.

¶10

This revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking quashing of the order dated 19-10-2024 on the ground that the amount awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant and disproportionate to the actual income and financial capacity of the revisionist. It is contended that the Family Court failed to properly consider the financial hardship of the revisionist, who is employed as a constable in the Border Security Force and is drawing a modest salary. It is further submitted that the revisionist is also burdened with multiple family responsibilities, medical expenses due to poor health, and other liabilities. The impugned order is alleged to be passed without taking into account the genuine economic condition and living standard of the revisionist. The revisionist also contends that no proper inquiry into his financial status was conducted before awarding the maintenance.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the learned Family Court passed the

¶12

impugned order after due consideration of all relevant facts and evidence placed on record, and that no illegality or perversity exists in the order so as to warrant interference by this Court. He also added that, instead of complying with the maintenance order, the revisionist has been filing cases before different courts, and the instant revision is merely a ploy to delay the payment.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. further argued that the revisionist has not produced any document showing that he has ever made payment of the maintenance amount to the opposite party. It is further submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order.

¶14

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2875 , wherein the Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enacted to ensure that a woman, who has left or has been thrown out of her matrimonial home, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that the concept of sustenance does not merely mean "to lead the life of an animal", but rather that the wife is entitled in law to lead a life in a manner similar to that which she would have lived in the house of her husband.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that filing of this revision is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and there is no merit in this revision.

¶17

It seems that the instant proceedings have been initiated with the sole intention not to pay the maintenance amount or it has been filed just to delay the payment of maintenance amount to the wife and children.

¶18

The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.7.2025

¶20

pks

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip Baranwal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Baranwal 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

Meena Kumari @ Meena vs Addl District Judge, 3RD, Room NO.1, Dist. Sultanpur and 5 Others

Irfan Husain and Another vs Smt. Kamlesh and Others

Munshiram and Others vs Ram Prakash and Others

Smt. Janaka Dulari and Another vs Shhatrohan and 2 Others

Babu @ Babu Ram vs Ram Naresh and 7 Others

Putti Lal vs Ram Kishore and Another