Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SATAN BAHADUR DHURIYA @ KHAJANCHIversusState of UP Others

Decided

Holding

The Family Court’s order granting Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance is upheld; the revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

The revision petition filed by Satan Bahadur Dhuriya challenged a Family Court order granting Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance to his former wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner argued that the amount was excessive and beyond his financial capacity as a driver. The State contended that a divorce decree under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act does not bar a wife from claiming maintenance and that the Family Court had correctly applied the law. The High Court examined the petitioner’s claim of inability to pay and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shamina Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, which upheld the principle that a driver can be liable for such maintenance. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Family Court’s assessment, the Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merit.

Issues considered

  • Whether the amount of Rs. 5,000 per month awarded as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is excessive given the petitioner’s income.
  • Whether a decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act bars the wife from claiming maintenance.
  • Whether the Family Court correctly applied the legal principles governing maintenance in the present case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • maintenance
  • Section 125 CrPC
  • divorce
  • Hindu Marriage Act
  • family court
  • revision
  • income assessment

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 78 of 2024

Satan Bahadur Dhuriya @ Khajanchi
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Up Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

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

Court No. - 86
                     HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.

2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 06.10.2023
passed by learned Family Court, Prayagraj in Maintenance Case No. 700
of 2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. By the said order, a sum of Rs. 5,000/-
has been awarded as monthly maintenance to opposite party no. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the sum of Rs.
5,000/- is excessive, arbitrary and beyond the financial resources of the
revisionist, as the revisionist is not capable of paying that much amount
awarded by learned Family Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submitted that learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
did not consider the entire facts and evidence on record, while passing the
order dated 06.10.2023. He further submitted that the revisionist is a
driver and therefore, is not capable of paying the said amount of Rs.
5,000/- to opposite party no. 2. It is prayed that the order dated
06.10.2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that it is a
matter of record that a decree of divorce has passed between the parties
vide order dated 17.09.2017 under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act,
however there is no embargo or bar that even if a decree of divorce is
passed between the parties, then the wife is not entitle for any grant of
maintenance. Learned A.G.A. submitted that order passed by learned
                                                                                              CRLR No. 78 of 2024
                                                                   2


                                    Family Court is in accordance with law and calls for no interference by
                                    this Court.

                                    5. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that the revisionist
                                    is a skilled person and is a driver and therefore, capable of paying the said
                                    amount of Rs. 5,000/- as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamina
                                    Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 702, as such no
                                    illegality or infirmity is found in the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by
                                    learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court and the instant revision
                                    is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.



                                                                                              (Harvir Singh,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Kirti




Digitally signed by :-
SMT KIRTI MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.