Allahabad High Court

BHAGWAN DASversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

Compensation under the PWDVA must be reasonable and adjusted with any maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, leading to a reduction of the awarded amount.

Summary

Bhagwan Das filed a criminal revision challenging the trial court’s order granting Rs 3,000 per month maintenance and a Rs 5,00,000 one‑time compensation to his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the appellate court’s affirmation of the same. The revisionist argued that the relief was excessive, that the wife was already receiving maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the courts failed to consider the parties’ income, assets and liabilities. The High Court observed that relief under Section 20(2) of the PWDVA must be fair, reasonable and consistent with the aggrieved person’s standard of living, and that duplicate awards must be adjusted as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha. Consequently, the compensation was reduced to Rs 1,00,000 and the orders were modified, with a direction to adjust any other maintenance received. The revision was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is excessive and violative of Section 20(2).
Whether maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be adjusted against relief awarded under the PWDVA to avoid duplication.
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred by not providing cogent reasons for the quantum of relief.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12, 20(2)

Subjects

Domestic Violence
Maintenance
Compensation
Section 125 CrPC
Section 20(2) PWDVA
Duplicate relief
Judicial discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7756 of 2025

Bhagwan Das
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suneel Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Kumar Dixit

Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. Despite service of
notice, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated
07.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.11, Chandauli in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2022, as well as the
order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Chandauli in Case No. 92 of 2016
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the proceedings
initiated by O.P. No.2 under Section 12 of the Act, instituted on
15.03.2016 with respect to an alleged incident dated 05.12.2015, are
delayed without any plausible explanation and are not maintainable in
law. It is further contended that the revisionist appeared in the
proceedings and filed his objections on 26.04.2017, and during trial
both parties adduced evidence, including statements of O.P. No.2 as
P.W.1 and the revisionist as D.W.1, along with documentary evidence
to show that the revisionist has been regularly paying maintenance and
bearing educational expenses of the children. However, the learned
trial court, without proper appreciation of evidence, passed the order
dated 07.04.2022 awarding Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance and
Rs.5,00,000/- as one-time compensation for mental, emotional, and
physical abuse, which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate
court vide order dated 07.08.2024 without assigning cogent reasons. It
is further submitted that both the courts below failed to consider that
O.P. No.2 is already receiving Rs.4,000/- per month under Section 125
Cr.P.C. pursuant to a compromise, and is also in possession of about 3
bighas of agricultural land of the revisionist at village Ghatampur, P.S.
Ahraura, District Mirzapur, as admitted in Original Suit No.335 of
2015 (Satyabhama Devi & others vs. Bhagwan Das), and has other
means of livelihood, including occupation of a government
CRLR No. 7756 of 2025
2

accommodation. It is thus argued that the courts below ignored
material evidence relating to the income and liabilities of the parties,
independent means of O.P. No.2, earning status of major sons residing
with her, and the medical and financial condition of the revisionist,
who is living in a rented accommodation after taking voluntary
retirement, and passed the impugned orders in a routine manner
without proper application of judicial mind.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the revision but could not
dispute that the opposite party no.2 is receiving maintenance from
other proceedings as well.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the
record including the impugned orders, this Court finds that while
granting monetary relief and compensation, the courts below have not
adhered to the mandate of Section 20(2) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which requires that such relief
must be fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living of
the aggrieved person. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party
no.2 is already receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh
vs. Neha, the amounts awarded in different proceedings are liable to be
duly adjusted to avoid duplication. In the present case, the award of
Rs.5,00,000/- as one-time compensation appears to be excessive and
not commensurate with the material available on record, particularly in
light of the financial condition of the revisionist and other attending
circumstances. Accordingly, the compensation amount is reduced from
Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Consequently, the orders dated
07.04.2022 and 07-08-2024 passed by the learned trial court are
modified to the aforesaid extent. It is further directed that in case the
opposite party no.2 is receiving maintenance from any other forum or
proceedings, the same shall be duly adjusted in accordance with law,
on the principle that the lesser amount shall be set off against the
higher amount.

6. The revision is, accordingly, partly allowed to the extent indicated
above.

March 19, 2026
pks
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…