Smt. Himanshi Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another

The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, in Maintenance Case No. 290 of 2023 (Smt. Himanshi Raj Vs. Sumit Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the marriage between the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 was performed in the year 2021 thereafter she was subjected to cruelty and misbehaviour on the part of opposite party no. 2. As a result an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed with an application for interim maintenance which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 05.06.2025 and the application for interim maintenance was rejected illegally without considering the material on record. He further submits that the learned trial court has recorded the findings in Paragraph 23 of the order and mentioned the fact clearly that wife's career is on better footing than the husband's clerical job in government department. Further submits that her engagement in government department is for three years and may be extended for further two years. Thus, the revisionist/wife can maintain herself and being in gainful work, therefore, she cannot be said to have no sufficient means for her maintenance. He further submits that she works on contractual basis and it may come to an end at any time but the opposite party no. 2/the husband is

¶13

CRLR No. 5185 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

on government service, therefore, some amount may be fixed against the opposite party no. 2 for maintenance of wife which the learned trial court did not consider and passed the order illegally, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the present revision.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. for the State 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. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 05.06.2025, it appears that the revisionist/wife worked as District Co-ordinater in the women welfare department from 3 July, 2019 to 2 July, 2022 and she was getting Rs. 20,000/- per month as monthly salary. Further it has been noted by the learned trial court that she was also appointed in Department of Panchayati Raj in Pilibhit district on the basis of civil engineering on 09.08.2023 and she is working there on contract basis on 2% fee of the estimated cost of preparing the project and the period of her service is for three years that may be extended for another two years as per rules and regulations of D.O.P.R. In this regard, the opposite party no. 2 has stated the earning of revisionist approximately Rs. 30,000/- but she has not disclosed the amount of her monthly income in her affidavit filed in compliance of Rajnesh Vs. Neha case. In case, her monthly income is assumed to be Rs. 20,000/- per month it cannot be said that she is not able to maintain herself as having no source of income. In this way, where wife is able to maintain herself no amount of maintenance can be fastened against the opposite party no. 2/the husband. The learned trial court has rejected the application for interim maintenance filed by the revisionist. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 05.06.2025 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed .

¶19

September 22, 2025 Suraj Srivastav

¶20

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶21

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

Smt. Himanshi Raj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Himanshi Raj 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