Shaurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

Shaurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application dismissed as not maintainable; applicant left at liberty to file criminal revision or an application under Section - 126 (2) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law; certified copies on record to be returned to counsel for applicant after retaining photocopy.

Issue for consideration

Whether, since the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 have been reincarnated in Section 528 BNSS, the analogy applicable to Section 482 Cr.P.C. extends to Section 528 BNSS, and consequently whether an application under Section 528 BNSS can be maintained against an order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

An order of maintenance or interim maintenance is not an interlocutory order; against such orders the aggrieved person's remedy is revision, and a Section 482 Cr.P.C.-type application is not the maintainable route (doctrine adopted in view of the rulings relied upon).

Ratio / Principle

The provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 have been reincarnated in Section 528 of BNSS, and therefore the same analogy is applicable to an application under Section 528 BNSS.

Key takeaways

This application under Section 528 BNSS against the impugned maintenance order dated 20.07.2019 is not maintainable.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Raj Beer Singh, J.), Court No. 71, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:78908, deciding on 14.5.2025 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 13500 of 2025 (Shaurabh Kumar v. State of U.P. and another): relying on Anjana Mukhopadhyay (2023:AHC:2129445), Ashu Jain (2023:AHC:165660) and Liaqat Hussain (AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497), the court held that a maintenance or interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and that the remedy against it is revision; since the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 have been reincarnated in Section 528 BNSS, the same analogy bars a Section 528 BNSS application against such an order. The application challenging the ex-parte maintenance order dated 20.07.2019 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr (Maintenance Case No. 532 of 2015, Smt. Indu Sharma v. Shaurabh) was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to seek criminal revision or apply under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78908

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13500 of 2025

Applicant :- Shaurabh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ahamad Farhan,Haya Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

This application under Section - 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been preferred against order dated 20.07.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, in Maintenance Case No. 532 of 2015 (Smt. Indu Sharma Vs. Shaurabh), under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Bulandshahr, whereby maintenance has been granted in favour of opposite party No.2.

By impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 20.07.2019 maintenance has been granted by Family Court in favour of opposite party No.2 under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. In view of law laid down in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445, Ashu Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023 :AHC:165660 and Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497, it is clear that an order of maintenance or interim maintenance is not an interlocutory order and that against such orders, aggrieved person has remedy of revision. It was held that against such order, application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In

BNSS the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 have been reincarnated in Section 528 of BNSS and thus similar analogy would be applicable to the application under Section 528 BNSS.

Thus, it is apparent that this application under Section - 528 BNSS against impugned order dated 20.07.2019 is not maintainable.

Accordingly, this application under Section - 528 BNSS is dismissed as not maintainable.

However, the applicant would be at liberty to file criminal revision or to file an application under Section - 126 (2) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law.

The certified copies available on record may be returned back to learned counsel for applicant after retaining photocopy of the same on record.

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 S Rawat

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad