Allahabad High Court
DILIP KUMAR SONKARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA
Holding
The High Court partially allowed the revision, setting aside the maintenance award to opposite party 2 under the PWDVA while upholding the remaining orders for other parties and mental‑agony compensation.
Summary
The revisionist, Dilip Kumar Sonkar, filed a criminal revision challenging a trial court order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a subsequent appellate order that imposed a cash payment, monthly maintenance, and compensation for mental agony on him. He contended that the maintenance claim by opposite party 2 (Vandana) was barred because a divorce decree had already awarded permanent alimony of Rs 8,00,000, which had been fully satisfied, and because he was already paying maintenance to his dependent children under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The opposite parties opposed the revision, arguing the PWDVA order was valid. The High Court examined the records, found the alimony and Section 125 maintenance already discharged, and held that the maintenance order to opposite party 2 under the PWDVA was untenable. Consequently, the court partially allowed the revision, setting aside the maintenance component for opposite party 2 while upholding the other reliefs, including maintenance for opposite parties 3 and 4 and the award for mental agony. The revision was therefore partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a maintenance order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be sustained when a decree for permanent alimony has been passed and fully executed.
- Whether the existence of a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order bars the award of additional maintenance under the PWDVA.
- Whether the appellate and trial court orders are illegal, perverse, or arbitrary in light of the prior alimony and maintenance payments.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- maintenance
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- permanent alimony
- criminal revision
- domestic violence
- mental agony
- stridhan
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4137 of 2024
Dilip Kumar Sonkar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Akash Mishra,
Anil Kumar, Kamta Prasad, Tripuresh
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anjali Singh, G.A., Pushpendra Singh,
Ray Sahab Yadav, Shri Chandra
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of revisionist during the course
of the day, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr.
Kamta Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist, learned
AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Shri
Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3
and 4.
3. Perused the record.
4. Revisionist Dilip Kumar Sonkar has approached this Court by means of
instant Criminal Revision challenging the order dated 26.07.2024 passed
by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, First Banda
(hereinafter referred to as appellate court) in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of
2023 (Dilip Kumar Sonkar Vs. Smt. Vandana and others) and order dated
28.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fast Track Court,
Banda (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Case No. 397/9/2020 (Smt.
Vandana and others Vs. Dilip Kumar Sonkar) under section 12 of
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and ordered the
revisionist to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- cash against Stridhan of opposite party
no. 2 Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance for rent, Rs. 10,000/- per
month for maintenance of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 in addition to that
CRLR No. 4137 of 2024
2
payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- ordered against mental agony of opposite party
no. 2. Against that order the revisionist filed aforesaid appeal before
appellate court wherein the appellate court ordered the revisionist to pay
Rs. 5,000/- as monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- against maintenance and Rs.
2,00,000/- against mental agony.
5. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has
been filed on the grounds that the orders of trial court as well as appellate
court are illegal, perverse, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, the
maintenance order against revisionist has already been passed in
proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said amount is being paid
by the revisionist continuously and a prayer for setting aside the
impugned order and allowing the present criminal revision has been
made.
6. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that the opposite party no. 2
is not entitled for any maintenance from revisionist for the reasons that
opposite party no. 2 had filed a divorce petition against the revisionist
which was decreed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda on
January, 5th 2026 wherein the opposite party no. 2 had prayed for
payment of a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. The
Principal Judge, Family Court ordered the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs.
8,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. The order of Principal Judge,
Family Court Banda which occurs at page 12 to 17 of supplementary
affidavit dated 31.05.2026 filed by revisionist in pursuance of aforesaid
order dated January, 5th 2026 the opposite party no. 2 filed an execution
petition bearing Execution Case No. 03/2026 (Vandana Vs. Dilip Kumar
Sonkar) which was disposed of after full satisfaction by order dated
05.08.2026. Accordingly, the aforesaid permanent alimony of Rs.
8,00,000/- has already been paid by the revisionist, obviously the order
dated January, 5th 2026 not only became final but it has been executed
too. The existence of such order ceased the right of opposite party no. 2 to
get maintenance from the revisionist.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist fairly admitted that
the dependent children of the revisionist are receiving maintenance
amount as ordered in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., and the same
CRLR No. 4137 of 2024
3
has been regularly paid by the revisionist. It is thus contended that in view
of aforesaid premise, the present criminal revision deserves to be allowed
by this Court setting aside the impugned orders.
8. Per contra learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf
of opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the criminal revision. But the
opposite party no. 2 could not dislodge the submission of learned counsel
for revisionist regarding the payment of the amount towards permanent
alimony and the payment of maintenance to the dependent children in
proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
9. Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of record, it is evident
that the submissions urged by learned counsel for revisionist are clearly
borne out from the record, therefore, the present criminal revision
succeeds partly. Accordingly the present criminal revision is hereby
partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.07.2024
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, First Banda is
hereby set aside to the extent of allowing the maintenance to opposite
party no. 2 while order of appellate court regarding other remedies in
favour of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 including amount against mental
agony is upheld.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
September 28, 2026
Arti
Digitally signed by :-
ARTI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…