Allahabad High Court
MOHD. FAIZIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court modified the interim maintenance order, stayed the arrears pending the pending application, and directed the Family Court to dispose of the application within six months.
Summary
Mohd Faizi filed a criminal revision challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs 7,000 per month dated 30‑07‑2026, issued by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, in a case under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He argued that no hearing was held, the amount was not proportionate to his income, and sought a stay of the arrears from the date of his application (09‑01‑2025) pending a separate maintenance application. The High Court, after hearing counsel, modified the trial court’s order, staying the arrears up to the date of the revision order, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance from 30‑07‑2026 onward, and ordering the Family Court to dispose of the pending application within six months without unnecessary adjournments, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v Neha. The court also warned that failure to comply would permit recovery proceedings. The revision was consequently disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim maintenance order can be quashed or modified without a hearing to the petitioner.
- Whether the arrears of interim maintenance can be stayed pending the outcome of a pending application under Section 125 Cr.P.C./144 B.N.S.S.
- Whether the Family Court should be directed to decide the pending maintenance application within a specific time frame.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 144
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- maintenance
- interim maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- Family Court
- revision
- stay of arrears
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5517 of 2026
Mohd. Faizi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd Shamim Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mohd Shamim Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal
revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in
the prayer clause. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision
is delineated below:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 30.07.2026,
passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3,
Muzaffarnagar, in Case No. 1392 of 2024 (Smt. Nagma and another Vs.
Mohd. Faizi), Under section 144 B.N.S.S.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present revision stay
the further proceeding of Case No. 1392 of 2024 (Smt. Nagma and
another Vs. Mohd. Faizi), Under section 144 B.N.S.S."
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar vide order dated
30.07.2026 directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 7000/- per month to his
wife/opposite party no.2 as an interim maintenance from the date of
application i.e. 09.01.2025. He further submits that the amount of interim
maintenance does not commensurate with the income of the
revisionist. He further submits that no evidence has yet been adduced by
CRLR No. 5517 of 2026
2
the revisionist, nor has any opportunity of hearing been given to the
revisionist, even then, interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- per
month has been granted by the trial court. He further submits that the
revisionist is ready to pay the interim maintenance amount from the date
of order and if opposite party nos.2 and 3 succeed in the pending
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C./144 BNSS before the trial court,
then maintenance may be granted from the date of application as per law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rajnesh vs.
Neha and another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that he does not
want to press this revision on merits and it may be disposed of giving
direction to the concerned Family Court to finally adjudicate the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C./144 BNSS expeditiously. He
further submits that in the interest of justice the arrears of the maintenance
amount from the date of application may be kept in abeyance till the final
disposal of the pending application under section 125 Cr.P.C./144 BNSS.
He further undertakes that if this Court accepts the aforesaid request of
the revisionist, the revisionist will clear all the dues/arrears of the
maintenance amount from the date of the order i.e. 30.07.2026 and he will
also pay the interim maintenance amount to his wife regularly on monthly
basis.
5. In view of above facts and circumstances and in interest of justice,
without issuing notice to opposite party nos.2 and 3, the order
dated 30.07.2026 is modified to the extent that the arrears of interim
maintenance amount starting from the date of application i.e. 09.01.2025
upto 30.07.2026 shall remain stayed till the final decision of the pending
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C./144 BNSS. However, the
revisionist is directed to clear all the dues/arrears of maintenance amount
from the date of the order i.e. 30.07.2026 and shall pay the maintenance
amount to his wife regularly on monthly basis.
6. In case, the revisionist fails to comply with any of the aforesaid
directions, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar,
will be at liberty to proceed for recovery of the arrears of maintenance
amount from the revisionist in terms of order dated 30.07.2026 as per
CRLR No. 5517 of 2026
3
prevailing law. The Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Muzaffarnagar is directed to pass final order on the pending
application under section 125 Cr.P.C./144 BNSS, preferably within a
period of six months, providing opportunity of hearing to the parties,
without granting any unnecessary adjournments, in the light of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha
and another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324.
7. With the aforesaid directions, this revision is disposed of.
(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
September 9, 2026
K.Tiwari
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…