Mukhtyar Vs State of U.P. and Another

1. Heard Shri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶11

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 319 of 2023, whereby the learned trial court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to opposite party no. 2 towards maintenance.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance, as she has already attained majority and is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality. It is further submitted that there are serious disputes regarding her date of birth and that the learned trial court has erred in allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶13

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that, keeping in view the present scenario and the rising cost of living, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month awarded by the trial court cannot be considered excessive and does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶14

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶15

6. From the perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the revisionist and Smt. Parveen Jahan was solemnised on 12.05.2003 and that a Talaqnama dated 08.07.2009 was executed between the parties after settlement of disputes. It is also borne out from the record that in the said Talaqnama dated 08.07.2009, the mother of the applicant clearly admitted that her daughter Muskan was about five years of age at that time. If Muskan was approximately five years old in July, 2009, she would have been born around the year 2003–2004.

¶16

7. The application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on

¶17

CRLR No. 5046 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

30.05.2023. On a simple calculation, if the applicant was about five years old in July, 2009, she would have been approximately nineteen years of age at the time of filing the maintenance application in May, 2023. This circumstance prima facie indicates that the applicant had already attained majority on the date of filing of the application before the learned trial court.

¶20

8. The core issue before the learned court below was with regard to the status of the applicant as a minor and her entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The material on record indicates a serious dispute regarding the date of birth of Muskan. No reliable documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate issued by the competent authority or unimpeachable school records, was produced to conclusively establish that she was a minor on the date of filing of the application. The learned trial court, while allowing the application, proceeded mainly on presumptions without recording a categorical finding based on cogent proof regarding minority, which is a sine qua non for grant of maintenance to a daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., unless she is suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury.

¶21

9. Even if the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card, i.e. 01.01.2006, is taken into consideration, the applicant would have attained majority on 31.12.2024. It is well settled that a major daughter, who is not suffering from any physical or mental disability, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record while allowing the application.

¶22

10. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 319 of 2023 is hereby set aside.

¶23

11. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude opposite party no. 2 from seeking appropriate relief, if so advised, before the competent forum in accordance with law, as contemplated under paragraph 370 of the Principles of Mahomedan Law.

¶24

February 13, 2026 pks

¶25

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukhtyar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtyar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sulochana vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ankur Alias Ankur Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naresh Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others