Allahabad High Court

LEKHRAJversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

The revision lacks merit and is dismissed.

Summary

Lekhraj filed a criminal revision challenging orders that dismissed his claims in a domestic violence petition and a related criminal matter. He argued that no domestic violence was committed by him or his family and that the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was unfounded. The opposite party, his daughter‑in‑law, contended that an FIR under Section 306 IPC had been accepted and that the father‑in‑law was trying to deprive her of her rightful share in ancestral property, seeking higher maintenance. The court noted that only a nominal maintenance of Rs. 2,500 per month had been awarded and found no merit in the revision. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, with a note that further remedy may be sought if circumstances change.

Issues considered

Whether the revisionist is liable under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Whether the existence of an FIR under Section 306 IPC affects the domestic violence claim.
Whether the maintenance award of Rs. 2,500 per month is adequate and enforceable.
Whether the revision has any merit to be entertained by the High Court.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 306
Indian Succession Act, 1925
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12

Subjects

domestic violence
maintenance
succession
property rights
criminal revision
Section 306 IPC
PWDVA
family law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4075 of 2024

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shivajee Singh Sisodiya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar Sahu, G.A.

Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party No 2 as well as learned AGA.

2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 24.5.2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bareilly in
Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2024 (Lekhraj Versus Smt. Dolly) and the order
dated 11.1.2023 passed by learned A. C. J. M, Court No. 5, Bareilly in Misc.
Case No. 572 of 2021 (Smt. Dolly Versus Lekhraj and others).

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that a petition
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act
has been filed against the revisionist, who is father-in-law of opposite party
No. 2. It is admitted fact that after the demise of husband of opposite party
No. 2, who was the son of revisionist herein, opposite party No. 2 was forced
to leave the matrimonial home and due to certain reasons, opposite party No.
2 preferred to stay away from the matrimonial home, since her husband
already died and the circumstances compelled her to stay away from the
matrimonial house. Another limb of the argument is that there is a first
information report lodged against opposite party No. 2 for abetting the
crime, as the husband of opposite party No. 2 died under mysterious
circumstances and a case under section 306 IPC has been lodged against
opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel also submitted that no domestic
violence, whatsoever, was ever committed by the revisionist or any other
family members of the family.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that as far
as the first information report lodged against opposite party No. 2 under
Section 306 IPC is concerned, final report has been submitted by the police
and the same has been accepted. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2
CRLR No. 4075 of 2024
2

also submitted that the intention of the father-in-law is not bonafide and the
father-in-law intends to shed away the share of opposite party No. 2 in
movable or immovable property, which would have devolved to opposite
party No. 2 under the Succession Act and that is the precise reason that
opposite party No. 2 has been ousted from the family.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 further submitted that the basic
intention behind the fact that opposite party No. 2 is residing away is that,
the father-in-law of opposite party No. 2 intends to dispose of, alienate or
change the title of the share of opposite party No. 2, which ought to have
devolved to opposite party no 2, after the demise of father-in-law and
mother-in-law, since the property as on date is the ancestral property of
opposite party No. 2. However during the lifetime of the father-in-law and
mother-in-law, the said property cannot be inherited by opposite party No. 2.
However, father-in-law and mother-in-law, may change change the title,
alienate or transfer the share of opposite party No. 2 and if they succeed in
doing so, opposite party No. 2 would be left at the mercy of the God.

6. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that only a sum of Rs.
2500/- has been awarded to opposite party no. 2 as monthly maintenance,
which appears to be bare minimum and not on the higher side and that shall
continue to be paid by the revisionist till his survival or otherwise when
opposite party No. 2 gets employment anywhere.

7. Under the circumstances, the revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
However it will be open to the revisionist to seek further remedy, as
provided under law, if there is any change in the circumstances in near
future.
March 18, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…