Allahabad High Court

CHIRANJIV PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The appellate court held that the Family Court’s maintenance order is justified and must not be set aside.

Summary

Chiranjiv Prasad appealed a Family Court maintenance order directing him to pay Rs 10,000 per month to his wife (opposite party no.3) from July 2019 to February 2024. The wife had left the marital home in 2018, later obtained a government teaching job in February 2024, and the husband argued that maintenance should cease. The husband contended the order was illegal, excessive, and that the wife’s refusal to cohabit barred her claim under Section 125(4) CrPC. The wife counter‑claimed harassment and dowry demands, but the court examined the Supreme Court precedents on maintenance as a measure of social justice. Relying on Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and other authorities, the court held the maintenance award appropriate given the wife’s prior lack of income and upheld the Family Court’s order, dismissing the revision.

Issues considered

Whether a wife who has obtained employment is still entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Whether the wife’s refusal to live with her husband without sufficient cause bars her claim for maintenance.
Whether the amount of Rs 10,000 per month is excessive or unlawful.
Whether the trial court erred by not requiring the wife’s asset and income declaration as mandated by Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 397, 401, 482
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Family Court Act — s. 96(4)
Indian Penal Code — s. 316, 323, 498-A, 504, 506

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
family court
revision
dowry
separation
social justice

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2558 of 2024

Chiranjiv Prasad
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rahul Kumar Jadaun
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, G.A., Sandeep
Kumar Keshari, Vivek Srivastava

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.3
alongwith order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Basti, today in the Court, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party no.3, Learned counsel for
revisionist and learned AGA for the State are present.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the opposite party
no.3, under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with section 96(4) of Family Court
Act against the Judgment and order dated 14.03.2024 passed by Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Basti in Maintenance Case No.277 of 2019
(Smt. Anuradha Vs. Chiranjeev Prasad), u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by which the
revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/-
per month to opposite party no.3, from the date of application i.e.
14.07.2019 till 08.02.2024, on account of her securing a government teacher
job in Bihar from 09.02.2024.

4. The order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Basti shows that the opposite party no.3 received Rs.30,772/- in excess and
the same has been refunded to the revisionist via cheque no.430298 dated
09.08.2025 and the revisionist made the endorsement that no proceedings are
pending between the parties.
CRLR No. 2558 of 2024
2

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/husband submits that the revisionist
married the opposite party no.3/wife on 22.05.2017 according to Hindu rites
and rituals and without any dowry. On December 14, 2018, the opposite
party no.3 left the revisionist's home under the false pretext of studying for a
competitive exam and returned to her parents' home with her father. Since
then, she has refused to return to the house of revisionist. The revisionist
wished to keep the opposite party no.3 with him and has undergone several
mediation to achieve the same. Vide impugned order dated 04.12.2024,
learned family court has partially allowed the application of the opposite
party no.3 illegally and arbitrary and directed the revisionist to
pay Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 as maintenance from the
date of the application, i.e. 14.07.2019 till the date 08.02.2024, on account of
her securing a government teacher job in Bihar from the date 09.02.2024.
Learned counsel for the revisionist/husband further submits that the opposite
party no.3 in her cross examination herself admitted that after the marriage
all her educational and coaching expenses were borne by the revisionist,
which indicate his sincerity and effort to support her wife i.e. opposite party
no.3. She has been working as a government teacher in Bihar since
09.02.2024, thus is earning enough to support herself, therefore, the order of
the learned court directing to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per
month to the opposite party no.3 from the date of application till the date
08.02.2024 is illegal and liable to be set-aside. The act of the opposite party
no.3 indicates that she has been living separately without any reasonable
grounds.

6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further contends that the learned trial
court concerned fixed an excessive and exorbitant amount as maintenance
without considering the fact that the revisionist has paid Rs.5,32,000/-
towards maintenance till 30.03.2024 by way of automatic deduction against
total maintenance of Rs.5,40,000/-, ordered by learned trial court. The
automatic deduction at the rate of Rs.23,000/- per month since the order of
learned trial court is under challenge in pending Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
CRLR No. 2558 of 2024
3

No.1727/2021 (Chiranjiv Prasad Vs State of U.P. & Another).

7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further contends that revisionist has
preferred the present revision on the ground that the learned trial court by
impugned order dated 14.03.2024 has ignored the legal mandate given in the
case and did not appreciate the evidence that the opposite party no.3/wife
left the revisionist without any reasonable cause and refused to maintain
physical relations as a wife. It is well settled law with respect to maintenance
under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. which provides that no wife shall be entitled
to receive an allowance for the maintenance, if she without any sufficient
reason, refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by
mutual consent. Opposite party no.3 did not submit declaration-affidavit
with respect to her asset and income certificate in compliance of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs.
Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 vehemently
opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of the revisionist and
submit that the revisionist and his family were dissatisfied with the dowry
received at marriage and were adamant with their demand to receive a swift
desire car as dowry too. From the very next day of her departure, the
revisionist/husband and his family started harassing and torturing the
opposite party no.3 for not getting a swift desire car as dowry and started
taunting, abusing, and beating her. The revisionist/husband has an illicit
relationship with a girl named Sushila and even claimed that he intends to
marry her and establish a family. The opposite party no.3 has lodged a first
information report against her in-laws, which was registered as Case Crime
No.356 of 2019, u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 316, IPC and section 3/4 of D.P.
Act, Police station Kotwali, District Basti.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 further contends that the
opposite party no.3 was an educated, unemployed woman with no source of
income till 08.02.2024. She was dependent on her parents, and their parents
are also unable to support her and she was forced to live a miserable life. On
CRLR No. 2558 of 2024
4

the other hand revisionist is employed as a clerk, drawing a monthly salary
of approximately Rs.50,000/-, but spends all his earnings on the same girl
named Sushila. Relying on the case of Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabai, Appeal
(Crl.) 1627 of 2007 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is averred that a
woman who is separated from her husband can request maintenance from
him even if she is earning a monthly income, as long as it is not sufficient
for her to support herself.

10. Perused of the record as well as aforesaid arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the light of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 it was held
that the maintenance is a measure of social justice and the social necessity
ends. Keeping in view that the opposite party no.3 had no prior source of
income and livelihood before securing a government job on 09.08.2024 and
the amount awarded by the learned trial court concerned as maintenance is in
accordance with the standard of living of the opposite party no.3 and
revisionist is well under power to pay the maintenance to the opposite party
no.3, from the date of application i.e. 14.07.2019 till 08.02.2024,
therefore, the learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned and
justified, hence, warrants no interference by this Court.

11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned Judgment and
order dated 14.03.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Basti in Maintenance Case No.277 of 2019 (Smt. Anuradha Vs. Chiranjeev
Prasad), u/s 125 Cr.P.C., needs no interference by this Court and the present
revision is liable to be dismissed.

12. 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…