Molika Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134033

Court No. - 84

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4267 of 2025

Revisionist :- Molika Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay 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. and perused the material on record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 338 of 2022 (Monika Verma Versus Sanjeev Verma), under Section 125 Cr. P.C., Police Station Nagphani, District Moradabad, whereby he allowed the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by the opposite party no.2 and awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/- to the opposite party no.2 which is very low.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is husband of the revisionist. He further submitted that marriage between the parties solemnized on 14.12.2021. Due to additional demand, she was subjected to harassment that was the reason, she came to her Maika and started living apart from the husband. He further submitted that an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance was moved on 12.05.2022, which was allowed vide order dated 29.05.2025 fixing the amount of Rs. 4000/- as maintenance to the revisionist. The opposite party no.2-husband owns jewellery shop and makes handsome income near about Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. He also submitted that opposite party no.2 has a business of money lending. Learned trial court has fixed the amount without taking into consideration the income of opposite party no.2-husband, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 29.05.2025 and increase the amount.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that revisionist herself is well qualified and has completed B.Sc, I.T.I. and Interior Designing Course. She is capable of earning her livelihood. There is no any jewellery shop in the name of opposite party no.2, but it is in the name of his father. The opposite party

¶10

no.2 is working in Cyber Cafe and getting Rs. 400-500/- per day. Out of this income, learned trial Court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 4000/- per month, which cannot be said to be disproportionate to the income of the husband.

¶11

On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 29.05.2025, it appears that there is no material on record to show that the opposite party no.2-husband has owned jewellery shop, namely Mahashiv Shakti Jwellers or he operated the business of money lending. In the affidavit filed by the parties, he has disclosed his income by private work and shown his educational qualification to be graduate. There is no disclosure of any income, in this way, there is no option except guess work about income of the husband. In case he worked as labourer, he may be able to earn Rs. 400-500/- per day and on the basis of which, monthly income of opposite party No.2 will be Rs. 12,00015,000/- and Rs. 4000/- per month in favour of wife/revisionist cannot be said to be dis-proportionate.

¶12

On the other hand wife/revisionist is also B.Sc I.T.I. and Interior Designer, therefore, she is also capable to make earning.

¶13

In the considered opinion of this Court, there appears no illegality of impropriety in the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned trial Court while allowing the application 125 Cr. P.C. therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. However, if the revisionist gets any proof of change in income of the opposite party no.2/husband, she may have an option to approach the learned trial court for enhancement of the order regarding the amount of maintenance.

¶14

Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 T.S.

¶16

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

Molika Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Molika Verma 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