MUKHTYARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5046 of 2025

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)       :   Harsh Vardhan Shastri, Satya Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    :   G.A., Vinod Singh

Court No. - 85
                       HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Vinod Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for
the State, and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside
the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 319 of 2023, whereby the learned
trial court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to opposite
party no. 2 towards maintenance.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the
ground that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance, as she has already
attained majority and is not suffering from any physical or mental
abnormality. It is further submitted that there are serious disputes regarding
her date of birth and that the learned trial court has erred in allowing the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that,
keeping in view the present scenario and the rising cost of living, the amount
of Rs. 2,500/- per month awarded by the trial court cannot be considered
excessive and does not warrant interference by this Court.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. From the perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the marriage
between the revisionist and Smt. Parveen Jahan was solemnised on
12.05.2003 and that a Talaqnama dated 08.07.2009 was executed between
the parties after settlement of disputes. It is also borne out from the record
that in the said Talaqnama dated 08.07.2009, the mother of the applicant
clearly admitted that her daughter Muskan was about five years of age at
that time. If Muskan was approximately five years old in July, 2009, she
would have been born around the year 2003–2004.

7. The application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on
                                                                                               CRLR No. 5046 of 2025
                                                                     2


                                    30.05.2023. On a simple calculation, if the applicant was about five years
                                    old in July, 2009, she would have been approximately nineteen years of age
                                    at the time of filing the maintenance application in May, 2023. This
                                    circumstance prima facie indicates that the applicant had already attained
                                    majority on the date of filing of the application before the learned trial court.

                                    8. The core issue before the learned court below was with regard to the
                                    status of the applicant as a minor and her entitlement to maintenance under
                                    Section 125 Cr.P.C. The material on record indicates a serious dispute
                                    regarding the date of birth of Muskan. No reliable documentary evidence,
                                    such as a birth certificate issued by the competent authority or
                                    unimpeachable school records, was produced to conclusively establish that
                                    she was a minor on the date of filing of the application. The learned trial
                                    court, while allowing the application, proceeded mainly on presumptions
                                    without recording a categorical finding based on cogent proof regarding
                                    minority, which is a sine qua non for grant of maintenance to a daughter
                                    under Section 125 Cr.P.C., unless she is suffering from any physical or
                                    mental abnormality or injury.

                                    9. Even if the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card, i.e. 01.01.2006,
                                    is taken into consideration, the applicant would have attained majority on
                                    31.12.2024. It is well settled that a major daughter, who is not suffering
                                    from any physical or mental disability, is not entitled to maintenance under
                                    Section 125 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
                                    considered opinion that the learned court below has not properly appreciated
                                    the evidence on record while allowing the application.

                                    10. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated
                                    30.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in
                                    Complaint Case No. 319 of 2023 is hereby set aside.

                                    11. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude opposite
                                    party no. 2 from seeking appropriate relief, if so advised, before the
                                    competent forum in accordance with law, as contemplated under paragraph
                                    370 of the Principles of Mahomedan Law.
                                    February 13, 2026
                                    pks
                                                                                               (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad