Allahabad High Court
SMT. JYOTI SINGHversusState of UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The revision is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Summary
The revisionist, Smt. Jyoti Singh, filed a revision under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the dismissal of her maintenance application by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad. She contended that the trial court erred by not considering her unemployment status after marriage, rendering the order illegal and arbitrary. The opposite party countered that documentary evidence, including a bank statement and salary slips, demonstrated that the revisionist was receiving regular income, thereby negating her claim of unemployment. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the trial court had correctly evaluated the financial documents on record. Consequently, the Court held that the revision lacked merit and dismissed it, while noting that the revisionist may seek further remedy if circumstances change. The order was pronounced on 18 March 2026 by Justice Harvir Singh.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the Section 125 application was justified despite the revisionist's claim of unemployment
- Whether the documentary evidence of salary and bank statements suffices to establish the revisionist's capacity to pay maintenance
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- maintenance
- family law
- unemployment
- revision
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3681 of 2024
Smt. Jyoti Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shiva Kant Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Man Bahadur Singh, Shivendra
Pratap Singh, Somendra Singh
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2024
passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Court no. 1, Firozabad, by
which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
has been dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the
application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was
dismissed for no reason and has further submitted that the revisionist was
unemployed at the relevant point of time specifically, subsequent to his
marriage with opposite party No. 2. The order passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, is illegal and arbitrary,
inasmuch as the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, failed
to take into consideration the fact that the revisionist was unemployed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party
No. 2 has argued that substantial documentary evidence exists in this
case, which has been submitted before the learned Family Court, as is
evident from page Nos. 5 and 11 of the 'Paper Book'. As part of the said
evidence, a 'Statement of Account' issued by the bank was placed on
record. This argument, as well as the fact that salary is received from the
company, cannot be refuted by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
CRLR No. 3681 of 2024
2
5. Under the circumstances, the revision is devoid of merits and the same
is dismissed.
6. However, it shall remain open to the revisionist to seek further remedy,
if circumstances so warrants.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
March 18, 2026
Faridul
Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…