Allahabad High Court

BHARTI SINGH AND ANOTHERversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 3 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The High Court set aside the Family Court's maintenance order and remanded the case for fresh determination of appropriate maintenance.

Summary

The High Court heard a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC challenging a Family Court order dated 5 March 2024 that granted modest maintenance of Rs.3,000 to the wife and Rs.2,500 to her minor son under Section 125 of the CrPC. The wife alleged dowry harassment, forced abortion, and that her husband, a landowner with an income of about Rs.1,00,000 per month, failed to provide adequate support. The husband contended he was unemployed and the wife could support herself, while the State’s AGA opposed the revision. The trial court had not properly considered the husband’s alleged income and the quantum of maintenance in light of inflation. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable, set it aside, and remanded the matter for fresh determination, while directing interim payment of the previously awarded amounts.

Issues considered

Whether the maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC was adequate given the husband's alleged income and prevailing inflation.
Whether the trial court erred in not considering the affidavit detailing the husband's income.
Whether the revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC is maintainable to set aside the Family Court order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 397, 401
Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
revision
family law
dowry harassment
interim maintenance
inflation
quantum of maintenance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2448 of 2024

Bharti Singh And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashutosh Sharma, Dhiraj Kumar Pandey,
Nitesh Kumar Jauhari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kartikey Mishra, Sandeep Tripathi

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 seeks further time to file
counter affidavit.

3. Perusal of order sheet shows that vide order dated 03.02.2026, two weeks
and no more time was granted to the opposite party no.2 to file counter
affidavit in the matter.

4. In the circumstances, the opportunity to file counter affidavit on behalf of
opposite party no.2 is hereby closed.

5. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Saharanpur, in Case No.667 of 2018 (Bharti Singh and another Vs. Nitin
Panwar), U/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Janakpuri, District Saharanpur, by
which the learned trial court has allowed the application of the revisionists,
filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the opposite party no.2/husband
to pay Rs.5500/-(as Rs.3000/- to the revisionist no.1/wife and Rs.2500/- to
the revisionist no.2/minor son) from the date of filing application, under
section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 16.07.2018.
CRLR No. 2448 of 2024
2

6. Learned Counsel of the revisionists submit that the marriage between
revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 05.02.2007 in
accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals. Soon after marriage, she was
taunted and harassed for bringing less dowry and had to undergo involuntary
abortion in the year 2007 on the ground of the child being a girl. An
additional dowry on different occasions were given to the opposite party
no.2 yet the taunts on insufficient dowry never ended. The son Devansh
(herein revisionist no. 2) was born on 29 November 2012.

7. It is further submitted by counsel for the revisionists that on 30.11.2013,
the opposite party no.2 and his family assaulted the revisionist no.1 and
kicked her out of the house, since then she has been living in her paternal
home without any source of income to support herself and her son.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the opposite party
no.2 is a wealthy individual who owns approximately 36 bighas of
agricultural land in his father's name and his annual income is approximately
Rs.12 Lakhs. In the year 2020, the opposite party no. 2 purchased a Fortuner
Car from one Om Veer Singh and on failure of receiving registration
documents, the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before Senior
Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur. One Dharmendra Kumar borrowed
Rs.2 lakhs from the opposite party no.2 and for it encashment Dharmendra
Kumar handed over the cheque no.007678 dated 30.06.2023 to the
revisionist but unfortunately when the opposite party no.2 presented the
same for its encashment the same was dishonored and opposite party no.2
lodged complaint against the Dharmendra Kumar for the offence under
section 138 N.1. Act, on 20.09.2023.

9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as
learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid arguments and
submitted that the revisionist no.1 is living separately without any
reasonable cause and is qualified enough to support herself and son. The
opposite party no.2 on the other hand is unemployed and the revisionist no.1
CRLR No. 2448 of 2024
3

could not submit any evidence regarding the opposite party no.2 assets or
income.

10. Perusal of the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2024 indicates that
revisionist no.1/wife has filed an affidavit dated 13.08.2021 disclosing her
monthly household, medical and traveling expenses etc. at Rs.30,000/-. She
has further stated that she has a minor son aged about 9 years, who is
entirely dependent upon her for his basic necessities as well as educational
expenses. It is further averred that the minor son is suffering from an eye
ailment and his treatment is undergoing in AIIMS, Delhi, on account of
which an additional expenditure of approximately Rs.15,000/- per month is
being incurred on treatment and studies. An additional of Rs.5000/- is also
incurred on clothes, food and other miscellaneous expenses of the said minor
son. The revisionist has also disclosed that the income of her
husband/opposite party no.2 is approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month. In
the affidavit she further states that opposite party no.2 is the sole son of his
father, who owns certain properties, however, since the said properties are
not in the name of opposite party no.2, the same cannot be taken into
consideration for the purpose of assessing his income.

11. The learned trial court, in its impugned judgment dated 05.03.2024, has
recorded that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of opposite
party no.2 and that there exists no ground to deny maintenance to the
revisionist no.1/applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, the learned
trial court failed to take into consideration the averments made by revisionist
no.1/applicant in her affidavit regarding the income of opposite party no.2
and his job description. Notably, opposite party no.2 has not specifically
denied the contents of the said affidavit.

12. The learned trial court, in the impugned judgment, has merely observed
that, keeping in view the prevailing inflation, a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been
awarded to revisionist no.1 and Rs.2,500/- to revisionist no.2 towards
maintenance. However, the said determination has been made without due
CRLR No. 2448 of 2024
4

consideration of the contents of the affidavit filed by revisionist no.1/wife,
wherein it has been specifically stated that the income of her
husband/opposite party no.2 is approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per
month. Moreover, no cogent finding as to how the quantum of the meager
maintenance amount of Rs.5500/- was awarded by the learned court.

13. In view of the prevailing rate of inflation, this Court is of the view that
the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-
aside.

14. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2024, passed
by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, in Case No.667 of
2018 (Bharti Singh and another Vs. Nitin Panwar), U/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police
Station Janakpuri, District Saharanpur, is hereby set-aside.

15. The matter is remanded to the learned court concerned to decide the
matter afresh after hearing both the parties, in accordance with
law, particularly in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.

16. During the period of pendency of the matter before the court concerned,
the opposite party no.2 is directed to pay the amount as awarded by
impugned order dated 05.03.2024 i.e. Rs.3000/- to the revisionist no.1/wife
and Rs.2,500/- to the revisionist no.2/son, as interim maintenance.

17. With the aforesaid observation, the present revision u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C.
is hereby disposed of.

May 4, 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…