SMT. HUDA KHANAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5384 of 2025

Smt. Huda Khanam
                                                               .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                :   Adil Jamal, Shabeh Jamal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)             :   G.A., Mohammad Abid Ali

Court No. - 88
                     HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist, today in the Court, is
taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and AGA for State and perused the record.

3. Present criminal revision is being preferred against the judgment and
order dated 01.08.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Rampur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.542 of 2023 (Smt. Huda Khanam Vs
Rizwan Khan), by which the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. moved
by the revisionist has been partly allowed and the opposite party no.2 was
directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the revisionist, from
the date of application i.e 21.09.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 05.11.2022 the
revisionist was married with opposite party no.2 according to Muslim rites
and customs. The revisionist's parents had given dowry beyond their means
in the marriage and had spent about Rs.15 lakh, yet after the marriage, the
opposite party no.2 and his family started taunting and harassing the
revisionist for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded a new car and Rs.5
lakh cash, as additional dowry. The brother-in-laws of the revisionist has
repeatedly sexually assaulted the revisionist in front of the opposite party
no.2, yet he threatened the revisionist. The revisionist later was thrown out
                                                         CRLR No. 5384 of 2025
                                2


of the house and was pressurized to fulfill the aforesaid demands of
additional dowry. Upon the refusal, the opposite party no.2 on 30.07.2023 at
around 4:00 P.M., pronounced triple talaq on phone and thereafter a
panchayat was held but the opposite party no.2 was adamant with the
additional dowry demand and the opposite party no.2 never inquired about
the revisionist nor provided any maintenance.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the
revisionist has filed an application filed u/s 125 C.r.P.C. for decree of
maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- but the learned Family Court vide its
impugned order dated 01.08.2025 awarded a mere amount of Rs.2500/-
without considering the income source of the opposite party no.2 and the
standard of living of the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 earns around
Rs.45,000/- per month and is fully capable of providing maintenance to the
revisionist as claimed in the application, hence the revisionist has preferred
the present revision for enhancement of the maintenance amount so
awarded.

6. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently
opposed the arguments advanced by the revisionist and submits that opposite
party no.2 and his family never physically assaulted or threw the revisionist
out of the house and all the allegations are false and baseless. The Opposite
party no.2 did not make any phone calls to the revisionist on July 30, 2023,
nor did he demand dowry or cash, nor did he pronounce triple talaq over the
phone. Due to the opposite party no.2's low income, the revisionist was not
agreeable to him and frequently caused conflicts at home due to
unreasonable demands, thus under imense pressure from the revisionist and
her family, opposite party no.2 agreed to a divorce her in March-2023. The
revisionist and the opposite party no.2 were divorced in accordance with
Sharia law and the after receiving an amount of Rs.5,60,000/-, the revisionist
is living separately as per her wish and happiness, whereas the revisionist
has never thrown by the opposite party no.2 out of the house nor has she
suffered any physical or mental harassment, therefore the revisionist is not
                                                           CRLR No. 5384 of 2025
                                 3


entitled to receive the maintenance amount.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that the
revisionist is an educated graduate and earns approximately Rs.15,000/- per
month by tutoring children and doing sewing and embroidery. The opposite
party no.2 lives in an old, ancestral house and earns barely Rs.5,000-6,000/-
per month through daily wage labor, which barely allows him to support his
parents.

8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 shows that application
under section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist for maintenance was
allowed by the learned trial court primarily on the ground that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesha, AIR 1999 (Supreme
Court) page 2374, has laid down the legal principle that a wife's statement
that she is unable to maintain herself is sufficient. Otherwise, the burden is
on the husband to prove that he is capable of maintaining himself. The
evidence on file establishes that the revisionist has no source of income. The
opposite party no.2 has failed to prove that the revisionist is capable of
supporting herself. Opposite party no.2 is healthy and young and with the
monthly income of approximately Rs.10,000/- earned from truck helpership
and other sources, he is fully capable of supporting the revisionist. Thus the
revisionist is entitled to get Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance from the
opposite party no.2 under section 125 C.r.P.C. (now 144 BNSS).

9. Perused the records, it is a well established principal of law that when a
party seeks enhancement of maintenance in revision, the High Courts hands
are tied by the statutory limits of revisional jurisdiction. It is confined to
examining legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness. The court may
quash, remit, or set aside an order if it is perverse or illegal, but it does not
substitute its own factual determination. Revisional power is not appellate
power. The High Court cannot directly increase or decrease the maintenance
amount in revision. The proper remedy for enhancement lies before the court
which passed the order in the form of an Alteration petition under Section
127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, if circumstances have
                                                                                              CRLR No. 5384 of 2025
                                                                     4


                                    changed (e.g., increase in income, inflation, new needs of dependents).

                                    10. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), at paragraph 128, while
                                    addressing the issue of overlapping jurisdiction and the need to avoid
                                    conflicting orders in different proceedings, directed in para 128.3:-

                                    "(iii) that if the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any
                                    modification or variation, it would have to be done in the same proceeding in
                                    which the order was passed."

                                    11. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed
                                    circumstances afresh. Its role is supervisory correcting illegality,
                                    impropriety, or jurisdictional error. Enhancement necessarily requires proof
                                    of changed circumstances (increase in income, inflation, new needs, etc.).
                                    This involves adducing and evaluating fresh evidence, inviting objections
                                    from the non-applicant, and forming a factual opinion.

                                    12. Revisional courts lack the power to conduct this evidentiary exercise.
                                    They cannot substitute their own factual findings for those of the trial court.
                                    The proper remedy would be to make a proper alteration petition under
                                    Section 127 CrPC / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, where evidence
                                    can be led and tested. Therefore, the revisionist is directed to approach the
                                    learned court concerned under Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS for
                                    the enhancement of the maintenance amount and the same shall decided by
                                    the learned court concerned in accordance with the law after hearing both the
                                    parties.

                                    13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
                                    dated 01.08.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur,
                                    in Criminal Misc. Case No.542 of 2023 (Smt. Huda Khanam Vs Rizwan
                                    Khan), needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable
                                    to be dismissed.

                                    14. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    VKG
                                                                                             (Achal Sachdev,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad