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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; application dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty granted to file criminal revision or resort to remedy available under law; certified copies on record to be returned to counsel for the applicant after retaining photocopies

Issue for consideration

Whether an application under Section 528 BNSS (the equivalent of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973) is maintainable against an order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., or whether the aggrieved person's remedy is revision

Court's answer

Adopting the law laid down in the cited precedents (Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay; Ashu Jain; Manish Aggarwal; Liaqat Hussain, DB), the Court proceeded on the footing that an order of maintenance or interim maintenance is not an interlocutory order, that the aggrieved person has the remedy of revision against such orders, and that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against such an order

Ratio / Principle

Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. enshrines the provisions equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973, and therefore the same analogy applies to applications under Section 528 B.N.S.S., rendering such an application non-maintainable against an order granting maintenance

Key takeaways

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. against the impugned maintenance order dated 13.12.2024 is not maintainable and is dismissed as such, with liberty reserved to the applicant to file a criminal revision or resort to other remedies available under lawratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Raj Beer Singh, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:34559; order dated 10.3.2025) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 7833 of 2025) challenging an order dated 13.12.2024 of the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Dhanaura, Amroha granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case No. 152 of 2022 (Smt. Neetu Devi vs. Sankit Kumar). Relying on Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay (2023:AHC:2129445), Ashu Jain (2023:AHC:165660), Manish Aggarwal (2012 SCC OnLine Del 4816) and Liaqat Hussain v. Jainab Praveen (DB, AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497), the Court held that an order of maintenance or interim maintenance is not an interlocutory order, that the aggrieved person's remedy is revision, and that since Section 528 B.N.S.S. enshrines the equivalent of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973, an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. against such an order is not maintainable. The application was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to file criminal revision or pursue other available remedies.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34559

Court No. - 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7833 of 2025

Applicant :- Sankit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Laxman Prasad,Rajiv Sisodia,Shashank Dwivedi

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 BNSS has been preferred against order dated 13.12.2024, passed by learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Dhanaura, Amroha, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 152 of 2022 (Smt. Neetu Devi vs. Sankit Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S.- Bachharayun, District- Amroha, whereby maintenance has been granted in favour of opposite party no.2.

By impugned order dated 13.12.2024 maintenance has been granted under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of opposite party no.2. 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 Manish Aggarwal Vs. Seema Aggarwal and Others 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4816, 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. Similar law has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Liaqat

Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497. In B.N.S.S. the equivalent provisions to Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973, has been enshrined in Section 528 B.N.S.S. and thus similar analogy would be applicable to the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

Thus, it is apparent that this application under Section - 528 B.N.S.S. against impugned order dated 13.12.2024 is not maintainable.

Accordingly, this application under Section - 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed as not maintainable.

However, the applicant would be at liberty to file criminal revision or to resort remedy available under law. The certified copies available on record may be returned back to learned counsel for applicant after retaining photocopy of same on record.

Order Date :- 10.3.2025

'SP'/-

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad