Premchand Vs State of U.P. and Another

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Varanasi in Case No. 1123 of 2021 (Smt. Reena Kumari Vs. Premchand), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him with two daughters those are minor. She is living in the quarter allotted to the revisionist. He is also making payment of expenses on education of children. The marriage was performed in the year 2013 and daughters were born in the year 2014 and 2016. Later on the opposite party no. 2 started misbehaving with the revisionist as a result he is living outside and anyhow passing his life. Further submitted that she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by learned trial court vide order dated 21.01.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 4000/- per month for each minor child. The amount as interim maintenance was also fixed by the learned trial court vide order dated 28.06.2023 at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 2500/- per month for each minor child. It is also submitted that the revisionist is constable in police department and gets salary Rs. 53995/- per month out of which he is to make payment of loan that is Rs. 12885/- and

¶13

CRLR No. 3738 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

also is under legal obligation to maintain his old parents. The opposite party no. 2 takes tuition by which she is making earning Rs. 15,000/- per month but learned trial court did not consider this fact while fixing the amount of maintenance, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned trial court and reduce the amount of maintenance payable month to month and also to adjust the amount already received by her as maintenance.

¶16

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

¶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 the learned trial court, it appears that admittedly the marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2013 and out of wedlock two daughter were born in the year 2014 and 2016, those are school going. A case under Section 11 Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the revisionist against the opposite party no. 2 for dissolution of marriage on the ground that she was wedded to some other person and without taking divorce, she entered into marriage with the revisionist but this fact could not be proved by the revisionist that was the reason case under Section 11 Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. There is allegation on the part of the wife that she is living with two minor daughters due to misbehave by the revisionist. He did not give any money for maintenance of her and daughters. She also moved an application to S.S.P. Varanasi and mater was referred to Mahila Sahayata Prakosht in which he was directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month in her account for her maintenance but the revisionist did not pay any amount as agreed as a result present application was filed by her. There is nothing on record to show that she is making income by taking tuition or there is other source of income for her maintenance. In this way, it is established that the revisionist has neglected to maintain the opposite party no. 2 and minor daughters. Admittedly, he works as constable in police department and gets about Rs. 53,995/- per month as net salary. In case the amount of EMI for loan Rs. 12885 is also deducted from his salary even then his income remains Rs. 41,000/- per month to be credited in his account out of which Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 4000/- per month for each child, total Rs. 15,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the income of the husband/revisionist. The learned trial court has itself directed in the order that any amount being received by the wife as maintenance in the present case or in other case shall be adjusted in

¶18

CRLR No. 3738 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

the present amount. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court and it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶21

Accordingly, this revision is dismissed .

¶22

September 11, 2025 Anurag Singh

¶23

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶24

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

Premchand v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand v. State of U.P. and Another

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