SMT JYOTI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7084 of 2025

Smt Jyoti And 2 Others
                                                         .....Revisionist(s)
                                 Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Shashi Kant Shukla, Shivanshi Tiwari,
                                Vivek Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Diwakar Shukla, G.A.

Court No. - 87
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. A perusal of the office report shows that the matter was referred for
mediation but on account of non depositing the required amount by
opposite party no. 2 the proceedings before the Mediation Centre could
not commence.

2. Heard Mr. Vishal Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Shivanshi
Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing
the State and Mr. Diwakar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party nos.
2,3,4,5&6 and perused the material available on record.

3. Revisionists Smt. Jyoti and two others have approached this Court by
means of present Criminal Revision challenging the impugned judgement
and orders dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Banda (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court") in
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024, Smt. Jyoti and others v. Awalendu
Trivedi and others whereby the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal
filed by the revisionist and directed the opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs.
5000/- per month as rent and maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to
revisionist no. 1 and Rs. 2000/- per month each to revisionist nos. 2&3,
amounting to an aggregate sum of Rs. 13000/- per month. The payment of
Rs. 5000/- per month towards rent was made subject to the revisionist no.
1 furnishing the rent receipts.

4. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the present Criminal
                                                         CRLR No. 7084 of 2025
                                2


Revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned orders passed
by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are even otherwise bad
in law and on facts, both. It has, therefore, been prayed that the impugned
orders be set aside and the present revision be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that by way of
supplementary affidavit, the revisionist has filed a copy of the khasra and
Khatauni as S.A.-1 and the document relating to the house as S.A.-2. It is
submitted that the aforesaid documents reflect that the father of opposite
party no. 2 owns agricultural land and that opposite party no. 2 along with
his mother owns a house bearing House No. 488/430A, Murai Tola,
Fatehpur. Apart from the aforesaid documents, the revisionist has also
filed the salary slip of opposite party no. 2, wherein his monthly income
has been shown as Rs.21,600/-. Learned counsel for the revisionist further
submitted that the Appellate Court failed to properly consider the income
derived from the house and despite the actual financial position of
opposite party no. 2, passed the impugned order. It is, therefore,
contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the present
criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned
A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present revision and submitted that the
liability to maintain the wife primarily rests upon the husband. The other
family members may be held liable for domestic violence, if any proved
against them, otherwise, the responsibility to maintain the wife is that of
the husband. It is further submitted that, according to the revisionist
herself, the monthly income of opposite party no. 2 is Rs.21,600/-. If the
document filed as S.A.-2, particularly at page 12 of the supplementary
affidavit, is taken into consideration, the standard rent of the house jointly
owned by opposite party no. 2 and his mother is Rs.3,600/- per annum,
which comes to approximately Rs.300/- per month. Thus, the total
monthly income of opposite party no. 2 would be approximately
Rs.21,750/-. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has directed payment
of a total sum of Rs.13,000/- per month under the heads of rent and
maintenance. Thus, the amount directed to be paid is more than 50% of
the monthly income of opposite party no. 2, which is excessive and
beyond his financial capacity. It is further submitted that the amount of
                                                                                            CRLR No. 7084 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    maintenance is more than the ratio provided by the Supreme Court in
                                    Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 . Accordingly, it is
                                    contended that the present criminal revision has no force and is liable to
                                    be dismissed.

                                    7. When confronted with the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
                                    the revisionist could not satisfactorily overcome the same.

                                    8. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, it is
                                    evident that the monthly income of opposite party no. 2, as stated by the
                                    revisionist herself, is Rs.21,750/-. The amount directed to be paid towards
                                    rent and maintenance in aggregate is a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month.
                                    Thus, a substantial portion of the monthly income of opposite party no. 2
                                    has been directed to be paid towards maintenance and rent. In the facts
                                    and circumstances of the present case, we find that the amount awarded
                                    by the Appellate Court cannot be said to be disproportionate against the
                                    interests of the revisionists so as to warrant interference in exercise of
                                    revisional jurisdiction. The revisionist has also failed to demonstrate any
                                    manifest illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order
                                    warranting interference by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
                                    we find no force in the present criminal revision. It is liable to be
                                    dismissed.

                                    9. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.



                                                                                     (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Brijesh Maurya




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