Allowed

Farha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2025CRLR/4536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court set aside the Family Court's order, noting the husband had pronounced Talak and the wife lived at her parental home, granted Rs.2,500 per month interim maintenance payable from the date of application, and remanded for decision on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Farha Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4536 of 2024

Farha

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Hasan Parvej
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Mohammad Fateh, G.A.
Court No.- 91

¶7

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶8

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Shri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Mohammad Fateh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶10

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Bareilly, in Case No. 1370 of 2023 (Farha Vs. Waseem), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Qilla, District Bareilly, whereby the application filed by the revisionist for grant of interim maintenance has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court without considering the fact that the revisionist is living separately with her parents has straightway rejected the claim of interim maintenance of the revisionist vide order dated 02.07.2024.

¶12

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the contentions of the revisionist and stated that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is perfectly just and proper, which does not warrant interference by this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

A perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial court has mentioned in its judgment that after the marriage the revisionist lived with the opposite party no.2 only for fifteen days and they have some personal differences and it also comes in the order that the revisionist has not seriously tried to save her matrimonial life and she is residing without any

¶14

CRLR No. 4536 of 2024

¶15

¶16

sufficient reasons at her parental house. Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court towards the documents which has been annexed at page nos.29 to 30 with the paper book, which is a registered notice dated 30.06.2023 given to the opposite party no.2, it speaks about the "Talak". In the last line it is mentioned that now there is no relation between the parties as husband and wife. Since it is clear that the opposite party no.2 has pronounced "Talak" and now she does not considered to be his wife. In such circumstances, there is no option available to the revisionist but to reside at her Maiyka i.e. parental house.

¶17

Admittedly, the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and now she is living at her Maiyka since when the opposite party no.2 has pronounced "Talak".

¶18

It has been submitted by the counsel for the parties that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending before the trial court and is likely to be concluded in near future.

¶19

In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view to set aside the order of the trial court and remit the matter back to hear and decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on merits after affording proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned to adduce their evidence, therefore, it would be appropriate to fix some amount of maintenance to the revisionist, at this stage, till the disposal of the application finally before the trial court.

¶20

Since the parties belong to the weaker section of the society as the opposite party no.2 is doing the work of labour as has been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed today, therefore, this Court deems it fit to direct the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.2500/- per month as interim maintenance to the revisionist till the disposal of the proceedings before the trial court, which is payable from the date of the application, to meet the expenses of the revisionist in these hard days.

¶21

In view of the foregoing discussions, the instant criminal revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Bareilly, in Case No. 1370 of 2023 (Farha Vs. Waseem), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Qilla, District Bareilly, is set aside. The trial court is expected to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

The opposite party no.2 is directed to pay Rs.2500/- per month as interim maintenance to the revisionist till the disposal of the proceedings before the

¶23

CRLR No. 4536 of 2024

¶24

¶25

trial court, which is payable from the date of the application.

¶26

The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter and decide the same after hearing the counsel for the parties without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶27

September 15, 2025 Prajapati RK

¶28

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Farha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Farha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases