Allahabad High Court

MUZAMMIL KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The appellate court held that the Family Court’s order under Section 125 CrPC was well‑reasoned and therefore not liable to be set aside.

Summary

Muzammil Khan appealed a Family Court order that directed him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 12,000 to his wife Rubi Begam and Rs 8,000 each to their daughter and son under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court had found that the husband had sufficient income and assets and had neglected his family, justifying the amounts. Khan contended that the order was excessive given his modest earnings and family obligations, while the wife and children asserted that the husband earned about Rs 60,000 from his railway job plus additional farming income and had transferred property to avoid liability. The High Court examined the evidence, noted the trial court’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rajneesh v. Neha, and concluded that the lower court’s reasoning was sound. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, leaving the maintenance order intact.

Issues considered

Whether the Family Court erred in fixing the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in favour of the wife and children
Whether the husband's income and assets justify the amounts ordered
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court’s findings on neglect and financial capacity

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
family law
revision
marital dispute
dowry harassment

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1919 of 2025

Muzammil Khan
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Waseem

Court No. - 88
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4, is taken
on record.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party
nos.2 to 4 and learned AGA for the State are present.

3. The opposite party no.2-Rubi Begam is also present, in person, in
compliance of the order dated 30.04.2026, however, the revisionist-
Muzammil Khan is not present. The personal appearing of the opposite party
no.2-Rubi Begam is hereby dispensed with.

4. The present criminal revision is being preferred by the revisionist against
the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, in Case No.991 of
2020 (Criminal Misc. Case No.730/2020 (Rubi Begam and others Vs.
Muzammil Khan), U/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District
Bareilly, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to
pay Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2/wife and
Rs.8000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3/daughter and Rs.8000/-
per month in favour of opposite party no.4/son, from the date of filing of
application i.e. 29.09.2020.
CRLR No. 1919 of 2025
2

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the
revisionist and the opposite party no.2 got solemnized on 08.02.2015 in
accordance with Muslim Rites and Rituals. Revisionist is a Class-IV
employee in the railway department and is bound to maintain his mother and
three sisters. Whereas the opposite party no.2 is a lady of modern thinking
who pressured the revisionist to demand his share and live separately from
his family. The learned trial court concerned did not take in account the
income and the living conditions of the revisionist and wrongly directed the
revisionist to pay an excessive amount of Rs.28,000/- per months to the
opposite party nos.2 to 4.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 vehemently opposed the
arguments advanced by the counsel of the revisionist and submit that the
father of the opposite party no.2 spent around Rs.20,00,000/- in the wedding,
yet the the revisionist and his family after marriage tortured the revisionist
for dowry harassment, cruelty, beatings, and mental torture and demanded a
scorpio car and Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry. On several occasions
opposite party no.2 was expelled from the matrimonial home. Revisionist
secretly and fraudulently married another woman named Pratibha Singh. On
15.09.2020, the opposite party nos.2 to 4 were thrown out from the house
and since then they have been living in the paternal home of opposite party
no.2 ever since.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 further contends that the
revisionist earns around Rs.60,000/- per month from his government job and
earns an additional income of Rs.1,00,000/- from farming and harvesting
crops and the opposite party no.2 has no independent income, therefore, the
revisionist possessed sufficient financial means, property, and earning
capacity to maintain his wife and children.

8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 shows that the learned
trial court allowed the application under section 125 C.r.P.C. primarily on
the ground that section 125 Cr.P.C. is a welfare provision intended to
CRLR No. 1919 of 2025
3

prevent destitution of wives and children. The evidence on the record
successfully proved neglect and refusal to maintain the opposite party nos.2
to 4 by the revisionist. In accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh vs. Neha and Others, decided on
04.11.2020, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2,
in which the opposite party no.2 has identified herself as a B.Com. graduate
and a housewife. She also mentioned pending proceedings under the
Domestic Violence and Muslim Divorce Acts. No one appeared on behalf of
the revisionist at the hearing and no oral or written arguments were
advanced. A review of the documents filed by the opposite party no.2
regarding the revisionists property reveals that the revisionist has
periodically transferred property owned by him to other individuals through
Hiba and Sale Deeds, indicating that the revisionist possess enough movable
and immovable assets to pay the maintenance to opposite party nos.2 to 4,
thereby directing the revisionist to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the opposite
party no.2 and Rs.8,000/- per month each to the opposite party no.3 and 4
from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 29.09.2020. The trial court has
taken into consideration the documents filed by the opposite party no.2
regarding the revisionists assists and liabilities and passed the impugned
order, therefore, learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned and
justified and warrants no interference by this Court.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
dated 25.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Court No.2, in Case No.991 of 2020 (Criminal Misc. Case
No.730/2020 (Rubi Begam and others Vs. Muzammil Khan), U/s 125
Cr.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, needs no interference by
this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
May 14, 2026
VKG
(Achal Sachdev,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…