PRATIK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7551 of 2025

Pratik Kumar
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Manoj Kumar Yadav, Ravi Prakash
                                Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shivam Shukla, Sushil Kumar
                                Shukla

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

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned A.G.A. representing the State opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Shivam
Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. The revisionist, Pratik Kumar has approached this Court by means of the
present criminal revision, assailing the impugned judgment and order dated
08.10.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court
No.4, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Case
No. 2453 of 2021, Lucky Dhusiya and others v. Prateek Kumar, whereby the
Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay interim maintenance of Rs.
12000/- per month to opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 5000/- per month to
opposite party no. 3, in aggregate sum of Rs. 17000/- per month as interim
maintenance.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist has preferred the
present revision on the ground that the Trial Court has committed a manifest
error of law in passing the impugned judgment and order. It is contended
that the impugned order has been passed without properly considering the
evidence on record and the financial condition of the parties. It is further
contended that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and
on false, fabricated and concocted grounds. Accordingly, a prayer has been
made for allowing the present revision and setting aside the impugned
judgment and order.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Trial Court
directed the revisionist to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.17000/- per month
                                                           CRLR No. 7551 of 2025
                                 2

towards maintenance. However, apart from the aforesaid proceedings,
proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 were also instituted, wherein the Magistrate concerned awarded
maintenance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 & 3 which the revisionist is
paying regularly. It is further submitted that the Trial Court failed to take
into consideration the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the
proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, despite the fact that, where maintenance has already been awarded by
another court in any other proceeding, the amount so awarded is required to
be adjusted/merged while determining the amount payable under the
subsequent order. The Trial Court, having failed to consider the aforesaid
aspect and to make an appropriate order regarding adjustment of the
maintenance already being paid by the revisionist, has committed an error of
law. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the
impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the present
criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party
nos. 2 & 3 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the revisionist and supported the impugned judgment and order.
It is submitted that the learned Magistrate, while passing the order under the
relevant provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, had already provided for adjustment of the maintenance amount,
in case any maintenance was awarded in favour of the applicants in any
other proceedings. It is further submitted that in the present case, the learned
Magistrate had already passed an order dated 29.07.2024 providing for
adjustment/merger of the maintenance amount awarded in the present
proceedings with the amount awarded under the proceedings relating to the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thus, the
grievance raised by the revisionist has already been addressed by the said
order and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any
interference by this Court.

7. When confronted with the aforesaid submissions and the order dated
29.07.2024, learned counsel for the revisionist could not satisfactorily
overcome the same.

8. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of both the orders, it
is evident that the learned Magistrate, while passing the order dated
29.07.2024, had already provided for adjustment/merger of the maintenance
amount awarded under the proceedings arising out of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the maintenance amount
awarded in any subsequent proceedings. Once such an order for
                                                                                             CRLR No. 7551 of 2025
                                                                    3

                                    adjustment/merger of the maintenance amount had already been passed by
                                    the competent court, no further or separate order in that regard is warranted
                                    in the impugned judgment and order. In view of the aforesaid facts and
                                    circumstances, we find no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the
                                    impugned judgment and order warranting interference by this Court in
                                    exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

                                    9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is
                                    hereby dismissed.

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




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