Dismissed¶11

Sheelu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2025CRLR/470/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; criminal revision dismissed; Family Court Kannauj; Principal Judge; maintenance Rs. 8,000/- per month; husband's duty to maintain wife despite plea of financial constraints; sustenance standard; abuse of process; delay tactic; Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya AIR 2005 SC 1809; Bhuwan Mohan Singh AIR 2014 SC 2875; Allahabad High Court Court No. - 79; Judge Prashant Kumar; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:117466; decision dated 18.7.2025; digitally signed Pankaj Kumar Srivastava.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the revisionist; the Family Court's maintenance award of Rs. 8,000/- per month stands undisturbed. ¶11

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117466

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 470 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Sheelu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Maohammd Nadeem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohammad Nadeem, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the impugned order dated 20-11-2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the court below awarded maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of the application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist's marriage was solemnized with opposite party no.2. Due to matrimonial discord, she left the matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the court below vide impugned order dated 20-11-2024. He submitted 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 already burdened with multiple family responsibilities, medical expenses due to poor health, and other liabilities. The impugned order is alleged to have been passed without conducting any proper inquiry into the genuine economic condition and living standard of the revisionist.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2005 SC 1809 has held that:-

¶13

"……..., it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.7.2025

¶19

pks

¶20

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

Sheelu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheelu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akeel Ahmad and Another vs the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Divisional Manager Division Officer Sitapur and 7 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. Thru. Manager in Charge Legal Hub vs Smt. Rubina and 5 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Manager Rakesh Singh in Charge Legal Hub vs Smt. Kiran and 6 Others

Ramendra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manik Chandra Yadav vs Manoj Kumar Gupta and 6 Others

Usha Devi and 2 Others vs Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Lakhimpur Thru. Branch Manager and Ors.