Allahabad High Court
RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The impugned interim maintenance orders do not suffer from any illegality and the criminal revision is dismissed.
Summary
Rahul filed a criminal revision challenging the Sessions Judge's order granting interim maintenance of Rs.4500 per month to the opposite party under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The trial court had based the interim award on a prima facie assessment of Rahul's income, pending a full trial on the merits. The revisionist argued that the order was premature and should be set aside. The High Court examined whether the interim order was illegal or infirm and held that the trial court acted within its powers, as the interim award was permissible pending final adjudication. Consequently, the Court found no ground for interference and dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim maintenance order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be set aside on revision.
- Whether the trial court erred in granting interim maintenance without a full evidentiary hearing.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- interim maintenance
- Domestic Violence Act
- revision
- Section 12
- maintenance order
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3368 of 2025
Rahul
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Hare Krishna Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Fakhruzzaman, G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Hare Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set
aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2024 and
affirmed the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/
Judicial Magistrate, Konch in Case No. 115 of 2023 (Smt. Archana Vs.
Rahul & Ors. filed under Section 12 of D.V.Act whereby the revisionist has
been directed to pay Rs. 4500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 as
interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
3. From the order, it transpires that the interim maintenance allowance to the
tune of Rs. 4500/- per month has been awarded by the trial court only on the
basis of prima facie opinion by considering the income of the revisionist.
The application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 12 of D.V.
Act is pending consideration before the trial court for final adjudication and
the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to
be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to
file their respective evidence before the trial court on the basis of that, trial
court shall reach at the conclusion as to what exact amount to be awarded as
maintenance.
4. Keeping in view of the facts of the present case and in the considered
opinion of this Court the impugned orders does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity and calls for no interference by this Court.
CRLR No. 3368 of 2025
2
5. The criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
March 18, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…