Dismissed¶12

Devendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2025CRLR/709/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Criminal Revision No. 709 of 2025; 2025:AHC:60062; Subhash Chandra Sharma J.; Devendra vs State of U.P. and Another; Kamla vs Devendra; Case No.169 of 2023; Family Court Sambhal; Principal Judge; Section 127 Cr.P.C.; Section 125 Cr.P.C. (u/s 125); maintenance enhancement Rs.6000 per month; original maintenance Rs.2000 (27.02.1997); paying capacity; Siksha Mitra salary Rs.10,000 per month; 37 bighas mango grove; dismissed at admissions stage; Police Station Behzoi; District Sambhal.

What did the court decide?

The maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month payable to the revisionist's first wife cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the revisionist's paying capacity, taking into account his salary of Rs.10,000/- per month as a Siksha Mitra, his agricultural land and his share in a 37 bighas mango grove.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal in the Section 127 Cr.P.C. maintenance matter should be allowed to stand, or be set aside and stayed as prayed by the revisionist. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.12.2024 cannot be said to be illegal or inappropriate; the criminal revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

¶11

Key takeaways

On the record, the revisionist has agricultural land in his name and holds one half of one share among three co-sharers in a 37 bighas mango grove, and the area of agricultural land owned by him is sufficient.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 709 of 2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:60062), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 79), decided on 22.4.2025 by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.: dismissed at the admissions stage itself. Revisionist Devendra challenged the judgment and order dated 23.12.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal in Case No.169 of 2023 (Kamla vs. Devendra) arising under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (Police Station Behzoi, District Sambhal), praying that it be set aside and stayed; his u/s 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance obligation of Rs.2000/- per month (fixed by order dated 27.02.1997) had been enhanced to Rs.6000/- per month from the date of order (23.11.2024), and he sought reduction on grounds of limited means, being a Siksha Mitra drawing Rs.10,000/- per month for eleven months of the year. The Court found the revisionist's agricultural landholding sufficient and noted his one-half-of-one share among three co-sharers in a 37 bighas mango grove; held the Rs.6000/- per month payable to the first wife neither excessive nor beyond his paying capacity; and held the trial court's order dated 23.12.2024 neither illegal nor inappropriate, dismissing the revision as devoid of merit.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60062

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 709 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar 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. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal in Case No.169 of 2023 (Kamla vs. Devendra) under Section 127 Cr.P.C., Police Station Behzoi, District Sambhal and also prays to stay the impugned order dated 23.12.2024.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is first wife of the revisionist who started living separately from him without any reasonable excuse. When she refused to live with him he entered into second marriage and now there are four issues from the second wedlock. It is further submitted that the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed by order dated 27.02.1997 by which Rs.2000/- was fixed as monthly amount for maintenance. Thereafter, by order dated 23.11.2024 it was enhanced to Rs.6000/- per month from the date of order. It is also submitted that the revisionist is Siksha Mitra and gets Rs.10,000/- per month as salary for a period of 11 months in the calendar year. The agricultural land was owned by his father though after his death it is in his name and also in the name of his mother. There is no so much income from the agricultural land that can be said to be sufficient to maintain himself, his second wife and four children after giving Rs.6000/- to the first wife/opposite party no.2. The amount enhanced is out of paying capacity of the revisionist, therefore, request to reduce the amount.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned

¶11

A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist is Siksha Mitra and gets Rs.10,000/- per month as salary, the opposite party is first wife of the revisionist and she being alive he entered into second marriage and having four children from the second wife. In addition to this, there is agricultural land in the name of the revisionist and also 37 bighas mango grove in which there are three co-sharers out of which he is share holder of one half of one share. The area of agricultural land owned by the present revisionist is also sufficient. The amount Rs.6000/- per month as maintenance for the first wife can also not be said to be excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist. In this way, the order passed by learned trial court dated 23.12.2024 cannot be said to be illegal and inappropriate but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admissions stage itself.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Vandana and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Shubhra Garg vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Mauni @ Laxmi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another