SHAHEEN AND 2 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 365 of 2024

Shaheen And 2 Others
                                                        .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                             .....Opposite
                                                                   Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                 :   Mohd. Ayyuq Hasan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

Court No. - 40
                   HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press the present
revision despite the matter having been called out.

3. On the previous date, none appeared on behalf of the revisionist and it
was made clear by this Court that in the event either of the parties
remained absent on the next date of hearing, the instant revision shall be
heard and decided on the basis of evidence available on record.
Accordingly, the Court proceeds to decide the revision on the basis of
available record and the assistance of learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionists have
challenged the judgment and order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, in Case No.246 of 2020, Shaheen and
others v. Haseenullah alias Mannu, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby
the application moved by the revisionists was allowed and opposite party
no.2 was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month
each to revisionist nos.1, 2 and 3 from the date of application. It was
further directed that the maintenance payable to revisionist nos.2 and 3
shall continue till they attain majority.

5. The present revision has been preferred only for enhancement of the
maintenance amount. It is stated that revisionist no.1 is residing at her
parental home along with her two minor daughters in compelling
circumstances and has no independent source of income. It is further
stated that opposite party no.2 has sufficient income from agriculture and
dairy business and is capable of paying Rs.50,000/- per month towards
                                                          CRLR No. 365 of 2024
                                2

maintenance. It has also been urged that the court below ought to have
granted maintenance from the date of filing of the original application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and not from the date of application under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.

6. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, has
recorded a finding that revisionist no.1 had sufficient cause to live
separately from opposite party no.2. The court below has also held that
opposite party no.2 failed to prove that revisionist no.1 had any
independent source of income. These findings are in favour of the
revisionists and have not been disturbed.

7. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the Family Court
considered the assertion of the revisionists that opposite party no.2 was an
agriculturist having agricultural land at Village Papri, Tehsil Nakud,
District Saharanpur and Village Garhi Abdullah Khan, Tehsil Un, District
Shamli, and was also engaged in the business of selling milk from cows
and buffaloes. However, though it was alleged that opposite party no.2
was earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per month, no cogent documentary
evidence was brought on record to establish his exact income.

8. The Family Court also took note of the stand of opposite party no.2,
who denied ownership of agricultural land, denied carrying on any dairy
business, and claimed that he was unemployed and suffering from illness.
Upon appreciation of the rival pleadings and the evidence available on
record, the court below fixed maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per
month each in favour of the three revisionists.

9. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not required to re-appreciate the
evidence as an appellate court unless the finding recorded by the court
below suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or manifest error. The
determination of maintenance is essentially a question dependent upon the
material placed before the Family Court regarding the needs of the
claimants and the means of the person liable to maintain them.

10. In the present case, the revisionists have not been able to point out any
material perversity in the finding recorded by the Family Court. The
principal ground for enhancement is that opposite party no.2 is earning
Rs.1,00,000/- per month, but the said assertion was not supported by
reliable documentary evidence before the court below. In absence of such
material, the amount fixed by the Family Court cannot be said to be so
arbitrary or unreasonable as to warrant interference in revision.
                                                                                              CRLR No. 365 of 2024
                                                                    3

                                    11. So far as the grievance regarding the date from which maintenance
                                    has been awarded is concerned, the Family Court has exercised its
                                    discretion on the basis of the facts of the case. No such illegality has been
                                    shown which may justify interference by this Court in the revisional
                                    jurisdiction.

                                    12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to enhance the
                                    amount of maintenance in the present revision. However, it is always
                                    open to the revisionists to move an appropriate application in accordance
                                    with law for enhancement of maintenance, if there is any change in
                                    circumstances or if better and additional evidence regarding the income
                                    and financial capacity of opposite party no.2 becomes available.

                                    13. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, the criminal revision is dismissed.



                                                                                           (Garima Prashad,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Kuldeep




Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad