Dismissed¶13

Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2025CRLR/744/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 744 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:39959, decided 14.7.2025 by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J. (Court No. 12), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others (Smt. Geeta Yadav; Prince Yadav). Keywords: Section 125 CrPC maintenance; Section 127 CrPC enhancement of maintenance; son attained majority; inflation; house construction; agricultural income; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no illegality or error in the impugned enhancement order, looking also to inflation, and held the revision to have been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. ¶12

Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Yadav Vs State… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39959

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 744 of 2025 Revisionist :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vimlesh Kumar,Ved Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vimlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.

¶6

This revision has been filed assailing the order dated 03.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 808 of 2022; Smt. Geeta Yadav and another vs. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, by means of which application under Section 127 CrPC filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. has been allowed. The monthly maintenance fixed by means of the order dated 18.05.2015 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 207 of 2009; Smt. Geeta Yadav and another vs. Dharmendra Kumar Singh under Section 125 CrPC has been enhanced from 3,000/- to Rs. 6,000/per month for the respondent no. 2 i.e. wife-Smt. Geeta Yadav and from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 5,000 for the respondent no. 3 i.e. Prince Yadav, son of the revisionist and the respondent no. 2.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the enhancement is double in respect of the respondent no.2 and five times in respect of respondent no. 3 from the maintenance earlier fixed by means of the order dated 18.05.2015, whereas the son has already attained majority because his date of birth is 12.12.2005. The enhancement has been done merely on the ground that the house has been constructed by the revisionist during this period and he is also earning from the agriculture, whereas the house has been constructed by father, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶9

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material placed on record, it is apparent that the enhancement is from

¶10

Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- in respect of respondent no. 2-Smt. Geeta Yadav, who is also looking after the son i.e. Prince Yadav of the revisionist and the respondent no. 2, who was studying in Class X at the time of application in 2022, whose enhancement has been made from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- till the date of attaining majority. Admittedly, he had attained majority in December 2023 as per the date of birth shown by the revisionist. Thus, in fact, the enhancement would be only from Rs. 4,000 to 6,000 w.ef. December, 2023 in which the respondent no. 2 has also to maintain her child i.e. respondent no. 3, who must have now been studying in higher class now and the revisionist has to pay the enhanced amount of the respondent no. 3 i.e. his son only from the date of application i.e. 05.07.2022 upto the month of December 2023, when he would have attained the majority.

¶11

So far as the ground taken by the learned trial court for enhancement of construction of house by revisionist and income from agriculture is concerned, no contrary material or evidence has been shown, on the basis of which any contrary view may be taken.

¶12

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned order looking to the inflation also. The revision has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds.

¶13

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 14.7.2025/Raj

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

Shanti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Rajendra @ Rajendra Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ajeet Mishra @ Ajeet and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Danish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shailendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another