Allahabad High Court
GAURAVversusState of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The revision is dismissed; the Family Court's maintenance order stands.
Summary
The revisionist Gaurav challenged a Family Court order that awarded Rs 3,000 per month as maintenance to his wife and son, arguing the amount was excessive given his unemployment and pending criminal cases. The State contended that the award was proportionate to the revisionist's income potential. The High Court examined the revisionist's capacity to earn, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, and concluded that the revisionist could earn sufficient income to meet the maintenance. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the original order, the Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merit. Consequently, the maintenance order remains in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance award of Rs 3,000 each to the wife and son under Section 125 CrPC is excessive in view of the revisionist's financial circumstances.
- Whether the Family Court order should be set aside on the ground of the revisionist's unemployment and pending criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- family law
- revision
- financial capacity
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4753 of 2024
Gaurav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jitendra Kumar, Rakesh Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. On 10.2.2026, this Court has passed following order:-
"1. List has been revised.
2. None appeared on behalf of either of the parties to press this
revision. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
3. List this case as fresh before appropriate Bench on 18.3.2026.
4. It is made clear that, if either of the parties does not appear on
the next date fixed, the revision shall be decided as per available
record."
2. Today also, none appears on behalf of either of the parties to press the
instant revision, hence, the revision is being taken up for disposal.
3. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated
31.7.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr in
Case No. 160/ 2022 (Smt. Sangeeta and another vs. Gaurav), under Section
125 CrPC, Police Station Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar, whereby a
sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded as monthly maintenance to opposite
party Nos. 2 and 3 each, being the wife and the son of the revisionist, from
the date of application.
4. It has been averred in the instant revision that, the said amount of Rs.
6,000/-, in total, is excessive, arbitrary and beyond the financial resources of
the revisionist, as the revisionist is not capable of paying the said amount of
CRLR No. 4753 of 2024
2
maintenance due to lack of his financial resources. It is also a matter of
record that, the marriage between the parties has not been disputed. It has
also come on record that, some other litigation is also pending between the
parties. It has also been averred in the instant revision that, the revisionist is
an unemployed person and is doing petty jobs for earning his livelihood and
there is also litigation pending against the revisionist herein under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506, 323 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. In the instant revision, prayer has been made that, the impugned order
dated 31.7.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State submits that, the
order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr is in
accordance with law and calls for no interference by this Court, as the
amount of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 each i.e. the
wife and the son, appears to be normal and proportionate to the source of
income of the revisionist, therefore, the instant revision is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and after going
through the impugned order dated 31.7.2024, it has come on record that, the
revisionist is capable of earning sufficient income and further capable of
paying Rs. 6,000/- in total, to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, as
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs.
Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 702, therefore, no illegality or
infirmity has been found in the impugned order dated 31.7.2025.
7. Hence, the instant revision, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
March 18, 2026
Gurpreet Singh
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GURPREET SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…