SHALU BACHCHAN @ KOMALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5661 of 2026

Shalu Bachchan @ Komal
                                                                 .....Revisionist(s)
                                      Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                                       :      Utsav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                                    :      G.A.

Court No. - 86
                 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1. Heard Sri Utsav, learned counsel for the revisionist, and learned AGA
for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present criminal
revision has been filed seeking the relief as mentioned in the prayer
clause. The prayer clause is delineated below:-

     "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
     graciously be pleased allow the instant revision by calling of record and
     modify the impugned order dated 09.06.2026, passed by Principal Judge,
     Family Court, Prayagraj, in Maintenance Case No.1163 of 2022 (Shalu
     Bachchan @ Komal Vs. Kunwar Rudresh@ Ravi) under Section 125 of
     Cr.P.C. to the extent of quantum of interim maintenance and enhance the
     interim maintenance amount awarded to the Revisionist Rs.8,000/- per
     month to just, fair and reasonable amount according to the income and
     paying capacity of the Opposite Party No.2, as the amount of Rs.15,000/-
     was earlier awarded to the revisionist by the learned Principal Judge,
     Family Court, Prayagraj vide its judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 in
     Maintenance Case No.1163 of 2022 (Shalu Bachchan @ Komal Vs.
     Kunwar Rudresh @ Ravi).

     It is, further most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
     be pleased to direct the Opposite Party No.2 to pay arrears of enhanced
     maintenance to the revisionist from the date of institution of maintenance
     case along with interest."
                                                       CRLR No. 5661 of 2026
                               2


3. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that by an ex parte
order dated 16.04.2024, maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month was
directed to be paid to the revisionist-wife by opposite party No.2-husband.
He further submits that the husband-opposite party No.2 filed an
application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) BNSS for recalling the
said ex parte order. The same was recalled at the cost of Rs.50,000/- and
thereafter, the proceedings were initiated afresh and interim maintenance
of Rs.8,000/- per month was awarded vide impugned order dated
09.06.2026.

4. It is further submitted that the salary of opposite party No.2 is
Rs.69,000/- per month and he is working as a Senior Clerk in the Sales
Tax Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the amount of
interim maintenance awarded by the impugned order is not commensurate
with the income of opposite party No.2 and the principles laid down by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari,
1970 (3) SCC 129, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury,
AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others, (2021) 2 SCC
324. He further submits that at least 25% of the salary of opposite party
No.2 may be awarded towards maintenance, in view of the law laid down
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the application
for maintenance is yet to be finally decided and, therefore, the learned
Trial Court may be directed to decide the same finally, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six months, after providing
adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

6. In view of the above submission, the learned Trial Court is directed to
decide the pending application for maintenance finally, in accordance
with law as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others, (2021) 2 SCC 324, as early as possible
preferably within a period of six months, after affording adequate
opportunity of hearing to both the parties and without granting
unnecessary adjournments.

7. The learned Trial Court is also directed to pass an appropriate order
                                                                                            CRLR No. 5661 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    directing the concerned authority of the husband-opposite party No.2, to
                                    deduct the amount of interim maintenance from the salary of the husband
                                    and credit the same directly into the verified bank account of the
                                    revisionist-wife.

                                    8. With the above observations, this revision is disposed of.



                                                                                      (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    DKS




Digitally signed by :-
DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad