RAVI RANAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6366 of 2025

Ravi Rana
                                                                 .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                             .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                   :   Rizwan Ahamad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A., Vineet Kumar Singh

Court No. - 85
                       HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

   1. Heard Sri Rizwan Ahmad, advocate along with Sri Rajendra Kumar,
      learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned
      counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State
      and perused the record.

   2. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the order
      dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)
      (FTC), Gautam Buddha Nagar in Misc. Case No. 2336 of 2020 under
      Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
      2005, as well as the appellate orders dated 25.08.2025 passed in
      Criminal Appeal Nos. 57 of 2022 and 55 of 2022 by the learned
      District & Sessions Court.

   3. The record reflects that Opposite Party No. 2 (wife) instituted
      proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in the year
      2020 alleging acts of domestic violence, including physical and mental
      cruelty, economic abuse, and forcible dispossession from the shared
      household.

   4. Along with the main petition, an application under Section 23 of the
      Domestic Violence Act was moved seeking interim maintenance of Rs.
      1,50,000/- per month, residence order, and other ancillary reliefs for
      herself and her minor children.

   5. The learned trial court issued notice to the respondents, who entered
      appearance and filed objections to the interim application. Both parties
      were directed to file income affidavits in compliance with the
      judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and
      Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

   6. After considering the pleadings, affidavits, and material placed on
      record, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (FTC), Gautam
      Buddha Nagar passed the order dated 22.04.2022, granting interim
      maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- towards rent in favour of Opposite Party
      No. 2 and Rs. 15,000/- as interim maintenance to the opposite parties,
                                                        CRLR No. 6366 of 2025
                               2


   along with other reliefs.

 7. Aggrieved by the said order, both the revisionist and Opposite Party
   No. 2 preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 57 of 2022 and 55 of 2022
   respectively before the learned District & Sessions Court.

 8. The appellate court, after hearing both parties and re-appreciating the
   material on record, disposed of the appeals vide orders dated
   25.08.2025, whereby the order of the trial court was partly modified in
   Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2022, and it was directed that the interim
   maintenance shall be payable from the date of filing of the application.

 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that Opposite Party No.
   2 is a highly qualified and professionally competent individual,
   possessing degrees in dentistry, hospital administration, and law, and is
   earning independently from multiple sources, as reflected in her
   Income Tax Returns. However, she has deliberately suppressed her
   true income and approached the courts with unclean hands to extract
   maintenance. It is further submitted that proceedings under Sections
   127 Cr.P.C. and 125(4) Cr.P.C. are pending, wherein issues relating to
   modification of maintenance and disqualification on account of alleged
   adultery are involved.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the impugned
   orders suffer from material irregularity and non-application of judicial
   mind, inasmuch as the courts below have failed to consider that
   Opposite Party No. 2 is already receiving Rs. 25,000/- per month for
   herself and Rs. 10,000/- each for Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 as
   interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pursuant to order dated
   14.06.2022 passed by the Family Court. It is contended that the grant
   of additional maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act amounts
   to duplication of relief.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the
   impugned orders have been passed after due consideration of the
   material available on record and do not suffer from any illegality or
   perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
   revisional jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the revisionist owns
   four vehicles, namely, Maruti Suzuki Celerio, Renault Kwid, Hyundai
   Verna (top model with sunroof), and Mahindra XUV300, and also
   holds an expensive membership of Jaypee Club and frequently travels
   abroad for vacations, reflecting his sound financial status.

12. It is contended that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act are
   beneficial in nature and intended to provide immediate and effective
   relief to an aggrieved woman, and that the grant of interim
   maintenance thereunder is independent of proceedings under Section
   125 Cr.P.C.

13. Learned counsel further submits that merely because maintenance has
                                                         CRLR No. 6366 of 2025
                               3


   been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the same does not bar the
   grant of relief under the Domestic Violence Act, particularly when
   such reliefs are wider in scope, including residence, protection, and
   monetary relief.

14. It is also submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 has no sufficient
   independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor
   children in accordance with the standard of living enjoyed in the
   matrimonial home, and the revisionist is legally and morally bound to
   maintain them.

15. The allegations regarding earning capacity, concealment of income,
   and other disputed questions of fact are matters of evidence, which
   cannot be adjudicated at this interim stage.

16. It is further submitted that the appellate court has rightly directed that
   the maintenance shall be payable from the date of application, which is
   in consonance with settled principles of law.

17. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record,
   this Court finds that the marital relationship between the parties and
   the existence of two minor children from the wedlock are undisputed.

18. It is also not in dispute that interim maintenance has been awarded in
   proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the competent Family
   Court.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (supra) has
   held that while maintenance can be awarded in different proceedings,
   the courts must ensure that there is no duplication, and the amount
   awarded in one proceeding is liable to be adjusted against the amount
   awarded in another.

20. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the grant of interim
   maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be faulted;
   however, to avoid duplication, appropriate adjustment/set-off is
   required.

21. The issues relating to income, earning capacity, and alleged
   suppression of income involve disputed questions of fact, which
   cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.

22. It is also evident that the impugned orders are interim in nature,
   intended to provide immediate sustenance to the aggrieved person and
   the minor children.

23. The direction of the appellate court making the maintenance payable
   from the date of application is in accordance with settled law and does
   not warrant interference.

24. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 22.04.2022 and
                                                                                                 CRLR No. 6366 of 2025
                                                                       4


                                           25.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2022 are hereby
                                           affirmed, subject to the modification that the amount of interim
                                           maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act shall be
                                           adjusted/set-off against the amount awarded under Section 125
                                           Cr.P.C., so as to avoid duplication of maintenance.

                                        25. It is clarified that all the orders under challenge are interim in nature,
                                           and the trial court shall decide the main petition independently on
                                           merits, without being influenced by any observations made herein.

                                        26. It is further observed that interim maintenance is granted to ensure that
                                           the aggrieved person and minor children are able to maintain
                                           themselves in accordance with the status of the parties and to prevent
                                           destitution during the pendency of proceedings.

                                        27. With the aforesaid observations and modification, the present criminal
                                           revision stands disposed of.

                                    March 19, 2026
                                    pks
                                                                                                (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad