Allahabad High Court
DR. SUMIT SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GARIMA PRASHAD
Holding
The Family Court’s order does not suffer from illegality or perversity and therefore the revision petition is dismissed.
Summary
Dr. Sumit Singh filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order dated 27‑05‑2024 that required him to pay Rs 10,000 per month to opposite party No.2 from the date of application and Rs 12,000 per month thereafter. The Family Court had found sufficient cause for opposite party No.2 to live separately and held that Dr. Singh, a B.D.S. doctor earning Rs 1,50,000 per month, had not shown that she had any other source of income. The High Court, after hearing the learned Additional Government Advocate and reviewing the record, found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s reasoning. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed. The order was upheld and no further direction was given.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court’s order directing maintenance payments to opposite party No.2 is illegal or perverse.
- Whether the revisionist has produced sufficient evidence to overturn the maintenance order.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the Family Court’s findings on income and separate residence.
Subjects
- family law
- maintenance
- revision petition
- income assessment
- separate residence
- perversity
- High Court revision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3545 of 2024
Dr. Sumit Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Girish Chandra Shukla, Kamlendra
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. None appears on behalf of the revisionist.
3. As per the office report dated 12.3.2026, notice has already been
served upon the opposite party No.2. However, no one has put in
appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2 nor any counter affidavit has
been filed on her behalf.
4. On the last occasion, this Court has recorded in its order that in the
event the parties are not present on the next date of listing, the revision
shall be decided as per available record.
5. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State.
6. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has challenged the
judgment and order dated 27.5.2024 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bareilly in Case No.193 of 2021 (Smt. Diksha Singh vs.
Dr. Sumit Singh) wherein the learned Family Court has directed the
revisionist to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 from
the date of application till the date of the order and Rs.12,000/- per month
from the date of the order.
7. Upon hearing the learned A.G.A. and perusing the material available
record, this Court is of the view that the learned Family Court, after
CRLR No. 3545 of 2024
2
considering each and every aspects of the matter, has held that the there
was sufficient cause for the opposite party No.2 to live separately.
Further, it has been held that the revisionist has not been able to produce
any evidence to prove that the opposite party No.2 has any other source of
income and the monthly income of the revisionist, who is a B.D.S. doctor
practicing from the year 2016, is Rs.1,50,000/- per month.
8. The judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court impugned
in the present revision does not suffer from any illegality or perversity
which may warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
9. The revision petition is dismissed.
(Garima Prashad,J.)
April 20, 2026
Rakesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH MEHTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…