Allahabad High Court
SMT ANAM ZAFAR SHAMSIversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The order of the Family Court dated 18‑05‑2024 is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration of the opposite party's income.
Summary
The revisionist Smt. Anam Zafar Shamsi filed a criminal revision under Section 125 of the CrPC challenging the Family Court's dismissal of her maintenance application. She alleged that the Family Court ignored the substantial income of the opposite party No.2, who runs two shops in Pilibhit, and relied solely on a low income certificate of Rs.4,500. The opposite party failed to file a counter‑affidavit despite being given ample opportunity. The High Court examined the record, noted the existence of the shops and the likely higher income, and held that the Family Court's reliance on the certificate without assessing the shop income was untenable. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Family Court to reconsider maintenance taking into account the shop income, tax returns and GST liabilities, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha. The revision was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the maintenance application by relying solely on an income certificate without assessing the opposite party's actual sources of income.
- Whether the order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC can be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- family court
- income assessment
- revision
- quash
- remand
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3233 of 2024
Smt Anam Zafar Shamsi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anil Kumar Shukla, Sarita Jhingan, Shivam
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. On 11.2.2026, this Court has passed the following order:-
"1. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party
no. 2.
2. Two weeks and no more time is granted to learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 to file counter affidavit, failing which the revision
shall be decided as per available records.
3. List this case as fresh on 19.03.2026."
2. List has been revised, but none appears today on behalf of either of the
parties to press the instant revision, even on revised call. Hence, the revision
is taken up for disposal accordingly.
3. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 18.5.2024
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bareilly in Criminal Misc.
Case No.499 of 2021 (Smt. Anam Zafar Shamsi vs. Shahzad Noor Shamsi),
under Section 125 CrPC, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly, whereby the
application moved by the revisionist under Section 125 CrPC has been
dismissed.
4. The revisionist herein has taken a ground that learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bareilly did not consider the entire facts available on record
and the source of income of opposite party No.2. It has been averred by the
revisionist that, the opposite party No. 2 is having two shops in the main
market in Pilibhit and has purchased the second shop for a sum of Rs. 60
lakhs and is running a business of selling toys, cosmetics etc, and is
generating sufficient income from the said two shops. It has also come on
record that, opposite party No. 2 placed some certificate of income, which
CRLR No. 3233 of 2024
2
was completely believed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly
and based on the said income certificate and discarding the source of income
from the said two shops, the application of the revisionist for maintenance
has been dismissed summarily.
5. It has also been averred by the revisionist that, had the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bareilly considered the income being generated from
said two shops, appropriate orders for grant of maintenance ought to have
been passed by learned Family Court. However, by discarding the main
source of income and relying upon a bare income certificate of Rs.4,500/-,
an illegality has been committed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bareilly and prayer has been made in the instant revision that, the impugned
order dated 18.5.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned AGA for State has submitted that, the impugned order
dated 18.5.2024 passed by learned Family Court is in accordance with law
and calls for no interference by this Court.
7. Having considered the material available on record and the averments
made in the instant revision, though the opposite party No. 2 did not file any
counter affidavit, despite being afforded sufficient opportunity, it is clear
that the opposite party No. 2 is having two shops in the market in Pilibhit
and is running business of selling toys, cosmetics etc. and therefore, it
cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that, the opposite party
No. 2 has no source of income and income certificate issued, without
assessing the income of opposite party No. 2 generated from said two shops,
is not tenable in the eyes of law.
8. Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.5.2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bareilly for passing an order afresh by taking into
consideration, the income being generated from said two shops, as well as
the income tax returns, if any, filed by opposite party No. 2 and any tax
being paid under Goods and Services Tax Act, besides other source of
income, if any, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh
Vs. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. The instant revision
is hereby allowed.
March 19, 2026
Gurpreet Singh
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GURPREET SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…