SHUBHAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2251 of 2026

Shubham
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                     :    Manvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :    G.A.

Court No. - 42
                 HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been filed for quashing the judgment
and order dated 12.2.2026 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Fatehpur in Criminal Case No. 99 of 2022 (Dipika @ Arti vs. Shubam),
under Section 125 Cr.P.C, P.S. Jafarganj, District Fathepur. Further prayer
has been made to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order.


2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the
State.


3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the
maintenance amount fixed by the Court concerned in this case is excessive
and exorbitant. It is also submitted that due to ailment the revisionist is not
able to do any job and he is earning nothing. He will not be in a position to
pay such huge amount as fixed by Court concerned. Impugned order suffers
from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.


4. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer submitted that there
is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by
this Court. The maintenance amount fixed by Court concerned is reasonable
one.


5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.


6. In this matter, as is evident from the record, the Court concerned has
fixed Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance. It is not
                                                                                              CRLR No. 2251 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    in dispute that opposite no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The
                                    object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the
                                    wife, who is not able to maintain herself and is not to punish a person for his
                                    past neglect. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing
                                    and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a
                                    bounty. A wife is also entitled to live with the befitting standard of husband.
                                    Thus keeping in view the rate of inflation, rate of house hold things, cost of
                                    living and the fact that it is the duty of a husband to maintain his wife, no
                                    infirmity or illegality is found in the impugned order. No good ground is
                                    made out to interfere with the matter. The criminal revision lacks merits and
                                    is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                                    May 8, 2026
                                    safi
                                                                                     (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad