Allahabad High Court

DEEPCHANDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The revision is dismissed and the Family Court’s order granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is upheld.

Summary

The revisionist, Deepchand, married the opposite party No.2 in 2013 and later became a 40% disabled woodcutter after a fall in 2020. The wife left the marital home, demanded divorce and Rs 15 lakh, and the couple’s two children were left with Deepchand’s brothers. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance, and the Family Court ordered Deepchand to pay Rs 3,000 per month from the date of filing. Deepchand appealed the order, arguing his disability and the wife’s ability to support herself, while the State contended the trial court correctly assessed the wife’s need and the husband’s capacity to pay. The High Court examined the medical board report confirming a 40% disability but not permanent, and found no error in the trial court’s reasoning, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rajnesh v. Neha. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC, upholding the maintenance order.

Issues considered

Whether the order of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC granted to the wife is justified in view of the husband’s disability and the wife’s alleged self‑sufficiency.
Whether the revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is maintainable against the Family Court’s order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 397, 401

Subjects

maintenance
section 125 CrPC
disability
family law
revision
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5683 of 2024

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pushpendra Singh

Court No. - 88

HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the state are
present.

2. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even in the revised
call.

3. Perusal of the order sheet shows that on several dates neither no one
appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 nor the counter affidavit has
been filed as yet, therefore the opportunity to file the counter affidavit is
hereby closed.

4. Present revision has been preferred against the order dated 03.08.2024,
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, in
Criminal Misc. Case No.1523 of 2022(CNR No.UPBU020037402022),
under section, 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Khanpur, District Bulandshahr),
whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the
revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month from the date of
application i.e. 15.11.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of revisionist
was solemnized with opposite party no.2 04.06.2013, as per Hindu customs
and traditions. The opposite party no.2 has always been a woman of
independent thinking who expressly refused to live with the family of the
CRLR No. 5683 of 2024
2

revisionist on the ground of it being a big one. Approximately two years
after their marriage, she quarreled with all her in-laws and forcibly began
living separately. The opposite party no.2 and the revisionist had two
children, a son, Vipul, and a daughter, Tanvi. The revisionist labored and
raised the opposite party no.2 and his two children, living separately from
his paternal family. The revisionist worked as a woodcutter and on
22.10.2020, while cutting a tree, he suddenly fell from the tree making him
40% disable and he continues to live like a disabled person since then. The
opposite party no.2 remained adamant on not living with the revisionist and
demanded a divorce and Rs.15 lakh from revisionist. When the revisionist
refused to grant a divorce, the opposite party no.2 left both children with the
revisionist and went to her parents' home and threatened the revisionist and
his family with dire consequences. Since then, her two children are being
raised by the revisionist's elderly brothers and the opposite party no.2 has
abandoned the revisionist and their children without any valid or sufficient
reason. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 is a healthy woman
and is capable of supporting herself, whereas the revisionist is a helpless and
disabled person and is living a life of extreme hardship.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submit
that vide order dated 28.01.2026, the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandhshahr,
Uttar Pradesh was directed to constitute a Medical Board comprising at least
three doctors to ascertain the degree of physical disability and physical
working condition of the revisionist and according to the report submitted by
Chief Medical Officer, Bulandhshahr, it was found by the Medical Board
that the revisionist has 40 percent disability and is currently unable to
perform heavy work, however it is not of permanent nature and he may
recover from treatment in the future. He further contends that the learned
trial court has concluded that the revisionist has shown gross negligence and
neglect in providing maintenance to the opposite party no.2/wife. The
opposite party no.2 is unable to support herself whereas the revisionist has
sufficient source of income to support himself and his family.
CRLR No. 5683 of 2024
3

7. Perusal of the impugned order of learned trial court shows that the
application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the
opposite party no.2 was allowed by the learned trial court in view of the
current inflation etc. and in continuation of the directions passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.730/2020, Rajnesh vs.
Neha & Others decided on 4.11.2020. To the learned trial court, it appeared
justified to grant maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the
opposite party no.2 from the revisionist with effect from the date of filing of
the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. With regards to cruelty and dowry
demand, only general allegations had been made without any evidence nor
any report or complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 in relation
to the dowry harassment. The revisionist neither inquired about the well
being of the opposite party no.2/wife nor provided any financial assistance
deliberately. The revisionist claimed that the opposite party no.2 is a healthy
woman and capable of supporting herself but could not provide any concrete
documentary evidence for the same. The learned trial court impugned order
is very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants no interference by
this Court.

8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
dated 03.08.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bulandshahr, in Criminal Misc. Case No.1523 of 2022(CNR
No.UPBU020037402022), under section, 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station
Khanpur, District Bulandshahr),, needs no interference by this Court and the
present revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the present revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is hereby
dismissed.
May 8, 2026
VKG
(Achal Sachdev,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…