SMT. JYOTI SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7402 of 2025

Smt. Jyoti Srivastava
                                                              .....Revisionist(s)
                                      Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)               :     Pradeep Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :     Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, G.A.

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

1. Counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit are filed on behalf of the
parties, which are taken on record.

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

3. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned
order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court No.2, Varanasi, in Case No.227 of 2016(CNR No.
UPVR020013252016) (Smt. Jyoti Srivastava Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava),
under section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the application moved by the
revisionist/wife was partly allowed and opposite party no.2/husband was
directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, from the
date of order.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the
revisionist and the opposite party no.2 solemnized on 26.01.2016 in
accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals and revisionist's father spent
approximately Rs.15,00,000/- on the marriage. Soon after the marriage, the
revisionist was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded a
four wheeler as additional dowry. The mediators had stated that the opposite
party no.2 was employed as an 'A.S.M.' (Area Sales Manager) at the Bhilai
Branch of a company named 'Namaste India' and that he owned personal
                                                          CRLR No. 7402 of 2025
                                 2


flats in Bhilai and Lucknow. Later, it was revealed that there is no Branch of
'Namaste India' exists in Bhilai at all and that the mediators had gotten the
revisionist married by lying. On 17.02.2016, the opposite party no.2/husband
left the revisionist/wife at her paternal home. On 13.06.2016, at around 3:00
P.M., the opposite party no.2 and his relatives came at the house of the
revisionist and demanded dowry, on refusal they assaulted the revisionist
gravely. Following this event, an F.I.R. was registered and since then the
opposite party no.2 never inquired about the revisionist nor provided any
maintenance.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the learned trial
court concerned has erred in deciding the quantum of the maintenance and
that the maintenance shall be payable from the dated of the order. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324 has
categorically held that maintenance should ordinarily be granted from the
date of application, to prevent hardship and to ensure that the purpose of
section 125 Cr.P.C. is fulfilled. Learned trial court concerned failed to
consider the arrears amount of interim maintenance granted by order dated
21.11.2017, despite the admitted fact that a total of sum of Rs.14,000/- at the
rate of Rs.2000/- per month has been paid by the opposite party no.2 only
for 7 months out of 93 months, and the remaining arrears of Rs. 1,72,000/-
for 86 months is still outstanding.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/husband
vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of the
revisionist and submit that the opposite party no.2 or his family never
harassed the revisionist over additional dowry demand. A suit for Restitution
of Conjugal Rights, Matrimonial Case No.205 of 2016 (Alok Srivastava vs.
Jyoti Srivastava) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been filed
by the opposite party no.2/husband in the Court of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, District Ghazipur, which is pending. Revisionist is a highly
educated woman and she teaches in a private school and knows tailoring and
knitting very well, through which she earns an income of Rs.50,000/- per
                                                           CRLR No. 7402 of 2025
                                 3


month and since she is living separately without any reasonable cause, the
revisionist is not entitled to receive any maintenance.

7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 shows that the learned
trial court concerned allowed the application of the revisionist u/s 125
C.r.P.C. on the ground that a constant apprehension of threat to life and
physical torture is a completely valid and justifiable ground for a wife to
reside separately. In the absence of clear evidence, it was assumed that the
revisionist is incapable of supporting herself. It is also worth mentioning
here that an order dated 21.11.2017 was passed to provide interim
maintenance of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month to the
revisionist, during the trial. Therefore, keeping in view the social and
economic status of both the parties the opposite party no.2 was directed to
pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist from the date of
the decision, i.e. 17.09.2025.

8. Perused the records, it is a well established principal of law that when a
party seeks enhancement of maintenance in revision, the High Courts hands
are tied by the statutory limits of revisional jurisdiction. It is confined to
examining legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness. The court may
quash, remit, or set aside an order if it is perverse or illegal, but it does not
substitute its own factual determination. Revisional power is not appellate
power. The High Court cannot directly increase or decrease the maintenance
amount in revision. The proper remedy for enhancement lies before the court
which passed the order in the form of an Alteration petition under Section
127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, if circumstances have
changed (e.g., increase in income, inflation, new needs of dependents).

9. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), at paragraph 128, while
addressing the issue of overlapping jurisdiction and the need to avoid
conflicting orders in different proceedings, directed in para 128.3:-
"(iii) that if the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any
modification or variation, it would have to be done in the same proceeding in
which the order was passed."
                                                                                                CRLR No. 7402 of 2025
                                                                     4


                                    10. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed
                                    circumstances afresh. Its role is supervisory correcting illegality,
                                    impropriety, or jurisdictional error. Enhancement necessarily requires proof
                                    of changed circumstances (increase in income, inflation, new needs, etc.).
                                    This involves adducing and evaluating fresh evidence, inviting objections
                                    from the non-applicant, and forming a factual opinion.

                                    11. Revisional courts lack the power to conduct this evidentiary exercise.
                                    They cannot substitute their own factual findings for those of the trial court.
                                    The proper remedy would be to make a proper alteration petition under
                                    Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, where
                                    evidence can be led and tested. Therefore, the revisionist is directed to
                                    approach the learned court concerned under Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section
                                    146 BNSS for the enhancement of the maintenance amount and the same
                                    shall decided by the learned court concerned in accordance with the law after
                                    hearing both the parties.

                                    12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned impugned order
                                    dated 17.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
                                    Court    No.2,    Varanasi,    in    Case     No.227   of     2016(CNR       No.
                                    UPVR020013252016) (Smt. Jyoti Srivastava Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava),
                                    under section 125 Cr.P.C., needs no interference by this Court and the
                                    present revision is liable to be dismissed.

                                    13. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
                                    May 15, 2026
                                    VKG
                                                                                             (Achal Sachdev,J.)




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