Allahabad High Court
SMT. INDU SISODIA AND ANOTHERversusGAURAV SINGH
- Decided
- Bench
- ACHAL SACHDEV
Holding
The Court held that there was no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s interim maintenance order and dismissed the revision.
Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Indu Sisodia and another, filed a criminal revision challenging an interim maintenance order dated 12‑02‑2025 passed by the Family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000 per month to the petitioner and Rs.2,000 to her daughter. The revisionists alleged that the trial court ignored the principles laid down in Rajnesh v Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and fixed the quantum on the basis of a false salary certificate submitted by the opposite party. The High Court observed that at the admission stage, no evidence had been adduced to prove the falsity of the salary certificate and that the revisionists could alternatively seek modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C. or the relevant provisions of the B.N.S.S. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order and dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- The trial court’s interim maintenance order was passed without proper evidentiary proof of the opposite party’s income.
- Whether the salary certificate relied upon by the trial court was false and could be examined at the revision stage.
- Whether the revision petition is maintainable given the availability of alternative remedies under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and the B.N.S.S.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments (Security) Act — s. 146
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 127
Subjects
- interim maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- revision
- false salary certificate
- family court
- quantum of maintenance
- evidentiary stage
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7735 of 2025
Smt. Indu Sisodia And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Gaurav Singh
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prerna Surolia, Ravi Kant Surolia
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant Surolia, learned counsel for the revisionists
and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even in the
revised call despite service of notice as per office report dated
07.05.2026.
3. The present revision is being heard at the stage of admission.
4. The present revision has been preferred against the judgement
and order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.
927 of 2022 (Smt. Indu Sisodia Vs. Gaurav Singh) passed by
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar u/s 125
Cr.P.C. by which the trial court had allowed the application 14Kha for
interim maintenance and has directed the opposite party to pay
Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to applicant no.1 and
Rs.2,000/- per month for her daughter.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has assailed the order dated
12.02.2025 on the ground that the trial court has overlooked the
principles laid down in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC
324 while passing the order. He has next submitted that the trial court
has erred in passing the impugned order determining the quantum of
interim maintenance compensation on the basis of false salary
certificate submitted by opposite party.
6. It is important to note that the present revision has been filed by
CRLR No. 7735 of 2025
2
the revisionist being aggrieved by the interim maintenance order that
has been passed by the trial court. The revisionist has an alternative
remedy of seeking modification of the same under Section 127
Cr.P.C./ 146 B.N.S.S. since no final order till date has been passed
and in a revision petition, the question of quantum is to be looked
only after evidence has been adduced by both sides in regard to
sufficiency of income of the applicant as well as opposite party.
7. The applicant/ revisionist has alleged that the trial court has
determined the interim maintenance amount based on false salary
certificate submitted by opposite party in the complaint case. The
same document is a fabricated one or is a genuine one has to be
decided on evidence that is led by both sides and at the interim
stage, in absence of any evidence, a conclusion cannot be drawn as
to falsity of the documents that have been brought on record.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the revisionist
has filed an asset certificate of opposite party before the trial court but
the trial court has failed to apply its judicial mind to the asset
certificate. The asset certificate of opposite party number has been
filed along with application wherein he has shown his monthly income
to be Rs.35,000/- and the trial court has also mentioned the same in
its order dated 12.02.2025.
9. After taking into consideration the asset certificate filed by the
applicant as well as the opposite party, as is apparent from the
impugned order dated 12.02.2025, this Court finds that there is no
illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated
12.02.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh
Nagar u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The same needs no interference by this Court
and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.
May 8, 2026
KS
(Achal Sachdev,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KISHAN SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…