Dismissed¶15

Prateek Srivastava v. Smt. Akanksha Srivastava and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2025CRLR/618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.125 CrPC interim maintenance; criminal revision dismissed by Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Mathur J.; unemployment plea based on resignation dated 13.09.2023 (relieved 28.09.2023) unsubstantiated by documents; monthly maintenance Rs.10,000/- upheld against salary of Rs.51,527/-; bank deposits Rs.4,49,440/- (2023-24), Rs.4,84,570/- (2022-23), Rs.4,61,180/- (2024-25); whether applicant can take advantage of his own act of resigning; Family Court, Lucknow, Crl. Misc. Case No.1879 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

None; the Family Court's interim maintenance order dated 22.04.2025 remains undisturbed. ¶15

Prateek Srivastava Vs Smt. Akanksha Srivastava and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Family Court's interim maintenance order dated 22.04.2025 remains undisturbed.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court erred in fixing monthly interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of opposite party no.1 despite the revisionist's plea of unemployment following resignation from his job on 13.09.2023. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

By the impugned order the Family Court considered the bank-account documents produced by the revisionist himself, showing regular deposits with monthly deposit of Rs.4,49,440/- for 2023-24, Rs.4,84,570/- for 2022-23 and Rs.4,61,180/- for 2024-25, along with various Fixed Deposits.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order, considering the salary slips, found the revisionist's monthly salary as per documentary evidence to be Rs.51,527/- and, on that basis, fixed a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-; this Court found no good ground to interfere with it.

¶13

Key takeaways

Although the plea of unemployment was raised in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the revisionist's objections before the Family Court, there is no document to substantiate acceptance of his resignation.ratio¶13
The Court noted that a consideration required is whether the applicant can take advantage of his own act of resigning from the job, particularly when he has not been terminated from service on account of any misdeed of opposite party no.1; this was flagged en route and not pronounced as a definitive ruling.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge decision of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Mathur, J. (order dated 3.6.2025), rejecting Criminal Revision No. 618 of 2025 by Prateek Srivastava against the order dated 22.04.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No.1879 of 2023 (Akanksha Srivastava v. Prateek Srivastava) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was fixed in favour of opposite party no.1. The Family Court had considered the revisionist's own bank records showing monthly deposits of Rs.4,49,440/- (2023-24), Rs.4,84,570/- (2022-23) and Rs.4,61,180/- (2024-25) and various Fixed Deposits, and salary slips indicating a monthly salary of Rs.51,527/-. The revisionist's unemployment plea rested on a resignation of 13.09.2023 said to have been accepted, but no document substantiating its acceptance was produced; the Court observed the consideration whether an applicant can take advantage of his own act of resigning where he was not terminated for any misdeed of the opposite party. Finding no good ground for indulgence, the revision was rejected.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34262

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 618 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Prateek Srivastava Opposite Party :- Smt. Akanksha Srivastava And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vipul Gupta,Sandeep Kanoujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2State.

¶7

Notice to opposite party no.1 stand dispensed with.

¶8

This Criminal Revision has been filed against impugned order dated 22.04.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No.1879 of 2023 (Akanksha Srivastava v. Prateek Srivastava) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby order has been passed for payment of interim maintenance.

¶9

It has been submitted that the Family Court has erred in fixing monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of opposite party no.1 while ignoring the fact that revisionist in his objections to application for maintenance had clearly stated that the revisionist had resigned from his job on 13.09.2023 which was accepted and the revisionist was relieved on 28.09.2023 and as such was not employed due to which an exorbitant amount of Rs.10,000/- per month should not have been fixed as monthly maintenance. It is submitted that revisionist and his family members never objected to opposite party no.1 being employed but she remained a house wife of her own volition and could not be made to take advantage of the said fact.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the Application with submission that revisionist has not been able to substantiate his plea of resignation from employment and that the said aspect has very well been discussed in the impugned order.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that by means of impugned order, the Family Court has considered the documents pertaining to Bank Accounts of revisionist which were produced by the revisionist himself and indicates regular deposits in his account with monthly deposit in year 2023-24 of Rs.4,49,440/-; for year 2022-23, a monthly amount of Rs.4,84,570/- and for year 2024-25, a monthly amount of Rs.4,61,180/-. The order also indicates various Fixed Deposits in the Bank Accounts of revisionist.

¶12

The impugned order thereafter considering the salary slips, has arrived at a conclusion that monthly salary as per documentary

¶13

evidence is Rs.51,527/- and considering that fact has fixed a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. It is evident that although plea of revisionist being unemployed has been raised in paragraphs 20 and 21 of his objections filed before the Family Court but there is no document to substantiate acceptance of his resignation. An aspect requiring consideration would be whether applicant can take advantage of his own act of resigning from the job particularly when he has not been terminated from service on account of any misdeed of opposite party no.1.

¶14

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground to grant any indulgence.

¶15

The revision therefore stands rejected .

¶16

Order Date :- 3.6.2025 kvg/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prateek Srivastava v. Smt. Akanksha Srivastava and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Srivastava v. Smt. Akanksha Srivastava 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

Anoop Rasbihari Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashish Kumar Dixit @ Ashish Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shivam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Shafiq vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Naseem Ahmad Khan vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Sharad Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Forest) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others