Allahabad High Court
RINKIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The ex‑parte order dated 27‑Oct‑2023 is set aside, but the revisionist shall continue to receive interim rent of Rs 2,000 and interim maintenance of Rs 2,500 until a final order is issued.
Summary
The revisionist Rinki filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which led a Civil Judge to order Rs 2,000 as rent and Rs 2,500 as monthly maintenance on 27‑Oct‑2023. Rinki appealed (Appeal 147/2023) seeking higher amounts, while the opposite party Prasun appealed (Appeal 148/2023) to set aside the order on the ground that it was ex‑parte and arbitrary. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Rinki’s appeal and set aside the ex‑parte order, directing a payment of Rs 20,000 as cost. The High Court, on revision, confirmed that the 27‑Oct‑2023 order is void for being ex‑parte but modified the relief to allow Rinki to continue receiving interim rent of Rs 2,000 and interim maintenance of Rs 2,500 until a final order is passed, and set aside the subsequent order dated 2‑Aug‑2024. The Court also directed that the opposite parties pay the cost and that the matter be re‑heard before the Civil Judge in accordance with Supreme Court precedents on maintenance calculations.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 27‑Oct‑2023 passed ex‑parte can be set aside under the PWDVA.
- Whether interim maintenance and rent can be continued pending a final order.
- Whether the cost of Rs 20,000 is payable to the revisionist.
- How Supreme Court precedents on maintenance calculation apply to this case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Domestic Violence Act
- maintenance
- ex‑parte order
- interim relief
- family court
- cost
- revision
- Section 12
- Section 18
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6468 of 2024
Rinki
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kailash Nath Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Reserved on : 20.03.2026
Delivered on : 15.05.2026
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
2. It is in this background that the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by
learned Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C./Domestic Violence Act, Jaunpur in
Case No. 1317 of 2021 (Rinki vs. Prasun), under Section 12 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. By the said order dated
27.10.2023, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C./ Domestic Violence
Act directed that the opposite parties shall not commit any domestic
violence against the revisionist (herein) as provided under Section 18 of
the Domestic Violence Act. However, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) /
F.T.C./ Domestic Violence Act directed the opposite parties to pay a sum
of Rs. 2,000/- in lieu of accommodation to be provided to the revisionist
and further directed that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid to the revisionist
as monthly maintenance. The said order was passed under Section 12 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The revisionist
has also challenged the order dated 2.8.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Jaunpur.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2023, the revisionist (herein) filed
an appeal bearing No. 147 of 2023 (Rinki vs. Prasun and others), seeking
modification of the order dated 27.10.2023 to the extent that the amount
CRLR No. 6468 of 2024
2
of rent of Rs. 2,000/- be enhanced proportionately and commensurate
with the accommodation, the revisionist was residing at the time of her
marriage and the amount of Rs. 2,500, which was awarded as monthly
maintenance, be further enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-.
4. On the other hand, opposite party no. 2 namely, Prasun also moved an
appeal bearing No. 148 of 2023 (Prasun vs. State of U.P. and another),
seeking setting aside the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by learned Civil
Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C. Domestic Violence Act. The applicant in Appeal No.
147 of 2023 (Rinki vs. Prasun and others) submitted that the order passed
by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C./ in Domestic Violence Act is not in
accordance with law and the amount of maintenance (Rs. 25,00/-) and the
rent in lieu of accommodation (Rs. 2000/-) is on the minimum side, as the
requirements of the revisionist for day to day expenditure have gone up,
as the revisionist has not been provided any accommodation and prayed
that the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/
F.T.C./ Domestic Violence Act was liable to be modified to the extent
that the amount of maintenance be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. The
revisionist appeared before the appellate Court, i.e. the Additional District
and Sessions Judge and submitted that opposite party no. 2 and others are
having adequate sources of income, as they are having sufficient
accommodation in Jaunpur and flats in Mumbai, as well as agricultural
land, and therefore, they are earning a substantial amount, and the amount
of maintenance is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party no. 2 (herein) in Appeal No. 148 of 2023 (Rinki vs. State of U.P.
and others) submitted that the order passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) /
F.T.C. is illegal and the amount of maintenance is beyond the resources of
opposite party no. 2 and while passing the order dated 27.10.2023, the
learned Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C. has arrived at arbitrary findings.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the
order dated 27.10.2023 is an ex-parte order and the same is liable to be set
aside, as the opposite party no. 2 was not afforded any opportunity of
hearing.
6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Appellate Court, i.e.
CRLR No. 6468 of 2024
3
Additional District & Sessions Judge passed the order in following
manner :-
(i) The appeal No. 147 of 2023 (Rinki vs. State of U.P. and others) was
dismissed.
(ii) Similarly, Appeal No. 148 of 2023 was allowed by setting aside the
order dated 27.10.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C.
However, the order dated 27.10.2023 being an ex-parte order was set
aside, subject to payment of cost or Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the
revisionist (herein).
(iii) Consequently, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2023 passed
by leaned Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C. and the order dated 2.8.2024 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision has been filed.
7. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that the order
dated 27.10.2023 is an ex-parte order, wherein opposite party no. 2 and
others did not participate in the proceedings, that is why Appeal No. 148
of 2023 was allowed to the extent that ex-parte order dated dated
27.10.2023 was set aside with the cost of Rs. 20,000/- and therefore,
whatever relief was granted by the Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C., vide order
dated 27.10.2023, the same also stands set aside.
8 Without going into the entire merits of the case, the order dated
27.10.2023 is an ex-parte order, which has been set aside by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge but by setting aside the order dated 27.10.2023
the relief granted to the revisionist (herein) has also come to the ground.
However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed
that the order dated 27.10.2023 is modified to the extent that the
revisionist (herein) shall continue to receive a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in lieu
of accommodation and Rs. 2,500/- as monthly maintenance in the form of
interim maintenance till final order passed by a competent Court, i.e. Civil
Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C. and the order dated 2.8.2024 is set aside, but also
modified to the extent that the amount of cost, which was to be paid to the
revisionist (herein) shall be paid by the opposite parties and once the cost
is being paid, the opposite party no. 2 shall participate in the proceedings
before learned Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C. but the revisionist (herein) shall
CRLR No. 6468 of 2024
4
continue to receive a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as interim rent and a sum of Rs.
2,500/- as interim maintenance till final disposal of the Petition No. 1317
of 2021 and the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C. shall pass an order in
accordance with law and also in terms of the order passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan
passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 564-565 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) Nos. 6380-6381 of 2014), decided on 06.04.2024 and in the case of
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Dhowdhury Nee Nandy passed in
Civil Appeal No. 5369 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34653 of
2016), decided on 19.04.2017, in which it has been held that even if the
amount of monthly maintenance is to be fixed, the same may be as 1/4th
of the salary of the employee, the same shall suffice and is presumed to be
adequate. It has also been provided that revisionist will have an
opportunity to assail the order in accordance with law, if still aggrieved
by any final order passed by learned concerned Court.
9. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that
the scheme of Family court provides that all matters pertaining to the
maintenance in respect of women and children to be integrated and
combined within the scheme of family court and laid reliance upon the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supeme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs.
Neha, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 569, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 915. In the
case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that it shall remain open to both the parties, i.e revisionist and the
opposite party to adduce oral, as well as documentary evidence in respect
of the income and source of income.
10. With the aforesaid observation the revision stands disposed of.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
May 15, 2026
Faridul
Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…