Shripal vs Smt. Jyoti and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 585 of 2025

Shripal

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

Smt. Jyoti And Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Devendra Pratap, Mohd. Kokab, Saad Husain, Shashank Shekhar Singh Jayveer Rajput, Akhil Anand
Court No.- 29

¶7

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶8

(In Ref:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application)

¶9

The office has reported this appeal to be beyond time by 56 days.

¶10

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing of the revision and as such, the delay is condoned.

¶11

The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed.

¶12

Office to allot regular number to this revision.

¶13

(Order on Criminal Revision)

¶14

Shripal- husband is aggrieved against the order dated 13.06.2025, whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao has awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/-, respectively in favour of respondent nos.1 & 2, namely, Smt. Jyoti and Ashita (wife and daughter of the revisionist) by accepting their application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist was married to opposite party no.2- Smt. Jyoti on 4th February, 2020 and from this wedlock a daughter, namely, Ashita (respondent no.2) was born, and

¶16

CRLRD No. 585 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

after sometime as a result of differences between the couple they separated and the wife along with daughter started residing at her parental house. He has submitted that an application dated 19th April, 2022 was moved by the opposite parties to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which has been allowed by the Family Court, Unnao through the impugned order dated 13.06.2025, thereby granting interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month each to the claimants, w.e.f. 19th April, 2022 till the decision dated 13.06.2025, followed by monthly maintenance Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/-, respectively in favour of the opposite parties.

¶19

Learned counsel has argued that the revisionist has already lost his father and elder brother, and he is also taking care of his mother and younger brother aged about 17 years, therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the daughter is on higher side. Learned counsel has argued that the revisionist is ready and willing to keep his wife and daughter with him, as she left his company without any reason. Learned counsel states that in a petition filed by husband under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, a decree was passed in his favour despite that the wife has refused to join his company, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.6.2025 calls for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶20

Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the revisionist neglected his wife and daughter who were completely dependent upon him, therefore, in such compelling circumstances, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved to seek maintenance from the revisionist. Learned counsel submits that the claim application was filed on 19th April, 2022 and till then, the revisionist never thought of retrieving back the company of his wife and daughter, who in retaliation filed an application under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 7th April, 2023 to seek restitution of conjugal rights. He states that the alleged decree is ex- parte as the wife had not contested those proceedings. Learned counsel has further argued that the minor daughter of the revisionist is school going child and keeping in view the present times, age of the parties, a reasonable maintenance has been awarded by the Family Court. He prays that the revision petition be dismissed.

¶21

CRLRD No. 585 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their assistance I have gone through the case file.

¶24

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that as far as the relationship between the parties is concerned, the same is not disputed and further the husband though initially contested the maintenance claim by filing his written statement, but later abandoned the proceedings, whereupon he was proceeded against ex parte. Though, the revisionist has relied upon his stand that he is ready and willing to keep his wife and daughter with him, and relied upon the decree in his favour, however, the said decree has not been placed on record. There is nothing on record to suggest that after filing of the maintenance application dated 19th April, 2022 the husband ever made any attempt to bring his wife and daughter back, whereas on the other hand, after filing the petition under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 17th April, 2023 he chose not to contest the maintenance claim. If, the revisionist was really keen for restitution of conjugal rights, he could have made such an offer before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao, but admittedly no such prayer was made by him.

¶25

The petitioner may be right in portraying his position, who is also maintaining his widowed mother and unmarried younger brother, but the said responsibility would not absolve him from maintaining his own wife and minor daughter. Concededly, the minor daughter is a school going child, therefore, considering the cost of living in present days, which is rising day by day, the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court does not appear to be on higher side. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the revisionist fairly stated that had the maintenance been granted at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month for the claimants, he would have accepted the verdict.

¶26

To a pointed query it is fairly admitted by learned counsel that after the demise of his father, the revisionist inherited his immovable agricultural landholding and besides that he is running a grocery shop in the village. Thus, considering the occupation of the revisionist, the liability fastened upon him is quite reasonable, and the final amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Unnao does not call for any interference.

¶27

CRLRD No. 585 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

Notably, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on 19th April, 2022 remained pending adjudication for three long years, wherein the husband revisionist in between abandoned the proceedings and chose not to contest the same, and it led to delay in adjudication, which was finally decided on 13.06.2025. Strangely, during the pendency of the proceedings, no interim maintenance was awarded by the Family Court, Unnao in favour of the claimants, but while passing the final order of maintenance, it has erroneously awarded monthly interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each, also till the date of decision i.e. 13.6.2025.

¶30

Once the Family Court, Unnao having examined the pleadings of the parties, evidence and other documents on record to arrive at a conclusion that a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month, respectively deserves to be paid to the wife and daughter of the revisionist, there was no occasion for the Family Court to grant interim maintenance to the claimants, as ordinarily the maintenance has to be awarded from the date of the application. Thus, to this extent the impugned order granting interim maintenance to the claimants from the date of application till the decision and making the relief of the final maintenance to be effective from the date of the order suffers from illegality and impropriety, therefore, to that extent the order calls for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶31

Resultantly, the part of the order granting interim maintenance to the claimants at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month each is set aside and further, it is clarified that the order granting final maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.2,000/- per month granted by the Family Court, Unnao in favour of the opposite party nos.2 and 3, respectively shall be applicable from the date of the filing of the application i.e. 19th April, 2022.

¶32

With the above modification, the revision is disposed of.

¶33

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶34

January 27, 2026 Raj

¶35

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

Shripal v. Smt. Jyoti and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shripal v. Smt. Jyoti 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jaishankar Shukla vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mangla Prasad vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Jagroshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prabha Shankar Lal Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Kiran vs State of U.P. and Another

Danish vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home), Lucknow and Another