Allahabad High Court

MANIRAM PATEL ALIAS MANIRAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The appellate court upheld the Family Court’s maintenance order and dismissed the revision.

Summary

Maniram Patel filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order dated 29‑08‑2024 that required him to pay Rs 10,000 per month to his wife and Rs 4,000 each to their two minor children under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He argued that his wife, an Anganwadi worker earning Rs 50,000 a month, is financially capable and that a settlement deed dated 07‑03‑2021 should pre‑empt any maintenance. The wife contended that the husband is an alcoholic who has abused her, has not complied with the order, and that an execution court order for salary deduction remains unimplemented. The High Court examined the parties’ incomes, the Supreme Court precedent in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, and the evidence of neglect, concluding that the trial court’s assessment was reasonable and the maintenance award appropriate. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the wife’s income and a prior settlement deed bar the award of maintenance under s.125 CrPC.
Whether the trial court erred in assessing the husband’s and wife’s incomes for maintenance.
Whether allegations of abuse and non‑payment affect the validity of the maintenance order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125

Subjects

maintenance
section 125 CrPC
family law
domestic violence
settlement deed
execution order
income assessment

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6121 of 2024

Maniram Patel Alias Maniram
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kuldeep Singh, Vipin Vinod
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present.

2. Perusal of record shows that the revisionist was granted time to file
rejoinder affidavit on 29.04.2026, but till date he has not filed his rejoinder
affidavit and further seeks time to file rejoinder affidavit, therefore, the
opportunity of filing rejoinder affidavit is hereby closed.

3. Present criminal revision is being preferred against the impugned order
dated passed 29.08.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Court no.5, Prayagraj in Case No.760 of 2020 (Smt. Lalti
Devi & others Vs. Maniram Patel), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station
Soraon, District Prayagraj, by the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.10,000/-
per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, from the date of application and
Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4, from the date of application
till their attaining the age of majority.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that marriage of the opposite
party no.2 has been solemnized with revisionist on 21.04.2007 and two
children were born but the opposite party no.2 without any reason started to
live with her parents at her own sweet will. The revisionist uses his salary to
support his children, i.e. opposite party no.3 and 4, while the opposite party
no.2 does not contribute a single penny from her salary obtained from
CRLR No. 6121 of 2024
2

Anganwadi to the children's expenses. Revisionist got a settlement deed
written on 07.03.2021, but the opposite party no.2 is neither paying attention
to the said settlement deed nor has it been implemented. The opposite party
no.2 is fully capable of supporting herself and her children with the income
earned from farming and Anganwadi, hence she does not need any kind of
maintenance.

5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further contends that the learned trial
court concerned did not properly assessed the income of revisionist as well
as the income of opposite party no.2. It is admitted fact that the opposite
party no.2 is posted on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri and drawing the
honorarium of Rs.50,000/- per month, but the learned trial court committed
gross illegality by awarding Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2
and Rs.4000/-each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4.

6. Learned Counsel the opposite party nos.2 to 4 vehemently opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that
the revisionist is an alcoholic and abused the opposite party no.2, both
physically and mentally. Revisionist used to neglect the opposite party nos.2
to 4 and used to live at his brother's house and attacks the opposite party
no.2 with axe on confrontation. Opposite party nos.2 to 4 further submits
that the revisionist has not paid single penny in compliance of the order
dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned trial court, due to which the opposite
party no.2 made an application before the execution court for deduction of
the maintenance amount from the salary of the revisionist to the tune of
Rs.36,000/- per month and the learned trial court vide order dated
02.08.2025 directed the competent authority for deduction of the same
amount, yet till date no deduction has been done by the competent authority
in favour of opposite party nos.2 to 4.

7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 shows that learned trial
court placed reliance on the judgment Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi AIR
1975 SC 83, where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court should ensure
that the amount of maintenance is sufficient to enable the wife to live a
CRLR No. 6121 of 2024
3

simple life, neither luxurious nor penurious. From the evidences, it is clear
that the revisionist described his brother's adult children as dependents,
while he did not describe his own children as dependents. It is clear that the
revisionist is not taking any responsibility of his children. A review of the
settlement agreement signed by the revisionist at concerned police station on
07.03.2021, which clearly shows that even at that time, the revisionist was
not providing any support for his family. Revisionist has a government
service, receiving a monthly salary of approximately Rs.61,000/- per month,
whereas the opposite party no.2 is bearing the expenses for the education
and medical care of the said minor and ailing son. Keeping in mind the
evidence on record, the learned trial court concerned directed the revisionist
to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, from the date
of application and Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4, from the
date of application till their attaining the age of majority. 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 passed 29.08.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Court no.5, Prayagraj in Case No.760 of 2020 (Smt. Lalti
Devi & others Vs. Maniram Patel), under section 125 Cr.P.C., needs no
interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
May 14, 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…