Disposed

Smt. Nirmala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026CRLR/316/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision against the dismissal of a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC. The High Court found merit in the revisionist's contention that her irregular income from decorating mandaps should not automatically bar maintenance. The court admitted the revision and issued notice.

What did the court decide?

Revision admitted; notice issued to respondent no. 2.

Smt. Nirmala vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 316 of 2026

Smt. Nirmala

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State respondent no.1 and perused the record.

¶11

Instant criminal revision, under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02/12/2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Barabanki, in Criminal Case No.825 of 2022, "Smt. Nirmala and others versus Satgurusaran" under Section 125 CrPC, by which the application under Section 125 CrPC has been rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly dismissed the maintenance petition filed by the revisionist and her minor children only on the ground that P.W.-2, who is the mother of the revisionist, has stated in her cross-examination that her daughter, Smt. Nirmala, derives earnings from decorating mandaps for festive occasions and she has employed three to four girls for said job.

¶13

He next submitted that this is admitted fact that the children of the revisionists are staying with her husband. The job of the revisionist is not regular in nature and only the season of marriages, she finds job.

¶14

The matter requires consideration.

¶15

Admit.

¶16

CRLR No. 316 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Issue notice to the respondent no.2, returnable at an early date, through the concerned CJM.

¶19

Steps be taken within a week.

¶20

List on 30/04/2026.

¶21

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶22

March 19, 2026

¶23

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Nirmala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nirmala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravej Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mahesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohan Lal Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Ji and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manish Tiwari @ Bablu Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pradeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others