Dismissed¶20

Vikesh Shahi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026CRLR/3302/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance — Section 125 CrPC — Criminal Revision (CRLR) No. 3302 of 2024, Allahabad High Court, Harvir Singh, J., decided 18.03.2026 — challenge to Family Court, Gorakhpur award of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. to wife and Rs. 2,500/- p.m. to son (Rs. 6,000/- total) — plea of mental instability and unemployment rejected for want of medical papers/prescriptions — finding of sufficient salary income at relevant time — revisionist held capable of earning and paying — no infirmity in impugned order — revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

At the relevant point of time the revisionist-husband was earning a sufficient income to take care of the entire family from his salary. ¶19

Vikesh Shahi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3302 of 2024

Vikesh Shahi

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite
	Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Arurit Kumar, Vinay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

.....Opposite

¶7

Along with :

¶8

1. Criminal Revision No. 2244 of 2024: Smt Sanyukta Shahi and another

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of U.P. and another

¶11

Court No. - 86

¶12

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14

The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.3.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case No.244/ 2019 (Smt. Sanyukta Shahi and others Vs. Vikesh Shahi) , under Section 125 CrPC, Police Station Gola, District Gorakhpur, whereby a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month to opposite party No.2- wife and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month to opposite party No.3- son have been awarded as maintenance.

¶15

It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that, the said amount of Rs. 6,000/- in total, is excessive, exorbitant and beyond the financial resources of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that, the learned trial court failed to consider the entire facts and evidence on record, while passing the order under challenge. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that, the revisionist is not mentally stable and is undergoing treatment, and therefore, is unemployed as on date and is not capable of earning any income, therefore, the impugned order dated 28.3.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶16

CRLR No. 3302 of 2024

¶17

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 submits that, the ground taken by the revisionist that, the revisionist is not mentally stable, could not be proved before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, as much as, the revisionist merely stated that, he is not mentally well, but no such evidence or any prescription of medical treatment or medical papers were ever placed before the learned Family Court and therefore, the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the facts, has passed the impugned order of maintenance. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 further submits that, the revisionist is a diploma holder in mechanical automobiles and at the relevant point of time, was earning a salary of Rs. 40,000/-, which was sufficient for taking care of the entire family, financially or otherwise. Merely because the revisionist has made a statement that, he is not mentally stable, cannot be a ground, unless and until, the same is proved by complete evidence on record. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further submits that, in order to shy away from the responsibility and duty to pay the said amount of maintenance, the revisionist has taken a false plea of not being mentally stable and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶19

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the impugned order dated 28.3.2024, it has come on record that, at the relevant point of time, the revisionist-husband was earning a sufficient income in order to take care of the entire family by the salary of the revisionist, however, the revisionist has merely stated that, he is not mentally stable, is not sufficient to sustain, unless and until, a sufficient and concrete evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the cause of illness, also supported by medical papers and prescription of the concerned Doctors. Even as on date, the revisionist is a qualified person and is capable of earning his livelihood besides being capable of paying the said amount of Rs. 6,000/- to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶20

Under such circumstances, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order dated 28.3.2024, and therefore, the instant revision, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed .

¶21

March 18, 2026 Gurpreet Singh

¶22

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikesh Shahi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikesh Shahi v. State of U.P. 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

Aas Mohammad @ Aashu vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shalig Ram Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Anokhelal vs State of U.P.

Namrata vs State of U.P.