Allahabad High Court

ISHAN SAHUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The interim maintenance award of Rs 12,000 per month is excessive and is reduced to Rs 9,000 per month (Rs 6,000 to the wife and Rs 3,000 to the son).

Summary

Ishan Sahu filed a criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs 12,000 per month (Rs 8,000 to his wife and Rs 4,000 to his son) passed by the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioner argued that he runs only a small temporary bicycle repair shop and cannot afford the amount, while the respondents claimed he operates a sizable showroom and earns substantial income. The High Court examined the evidence, including photographs of the modest shop, and held that the trial court had not properly assessed the petitioner’s actual earning capacity. It found the Rs 12,000 award excessive and reduced the interim maintenance to Rs 6,000 for the wife and Rs 3,000 for the son, totaling Rs 9,000 per month. The Court also directed the trial court to complete the final Section 125 proceedings within eight months, following the Apex Court precedents, and clarified that arrears will be calculated on the reduced amount.

Issues considered

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs 12,000 per month awarded under Section 125 CrPC is excessive in view of the petitioner's actual income.
Whether the trial court erred by not considering the evidence of the petitioner's earnings before fixing the interim maintenance amount.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 397, 401

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
interim order
criminal revision
excessive maintenance
family law
income assessment

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7876 of 2025

Ishan Sahu
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rakesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jawahar Lal Dubey, Piyush Kumar
Shukla

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

1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party nos.2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the impugned interim order dated
15th October, 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in
Case No. 751 of 2025 (Smt. Priyanka & Others Vs. Ishan Sahu), under
Section 144 B.N.S.S., whereby the trial court while allowing interim stay
application being paper no. 11A filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 in the
above case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.
8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to
opposite party no.3 (son) towards monthly interim maintenance allowance
from the date of filing of the instant application i.e. total Rs. 12,000/- per
month.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stressed that it is admitted before
the trial court by the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist has a small
temporary shop where he repairs bicycles and somehow earns some money
for his living. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that the
aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court while
awarding interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and
3 to the total tune of Rs. 12,000/- which is too excessive and exorbitant and
not commensurate with the next income of the revisionist and also not in
accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajnesh
Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj
Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel the revisionist submits that since
CRLR No. 7876 of 2025
2

the trial court has passed the impugned interim order without appreciating the
evidence available on record, such order is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and
the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not
committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order and
awarding Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3
towards interim monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the
instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise
of revisional jurisdiction. The amount of interim monthly maintenance
allowance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party
nos.2 and 3 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant in any manner.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that
the revisionist has a show-room of bicycles and at his shop, bicycles of
customers also get repaired by his mechanics from which he earns handsome
money by selling bicycles, therefore, he is fully capable to maintain his wife
and son.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the
impugned judgment, this Court finds that on one hand the opposite party no.
claims that the revisionist has a show-room of bicycles and at his shop,
bicycles of customers also get repaired by his mechanics from which he earns
handsome money but on the other-hand, the revisionist claims that he has a
small temporary shop where he repairs bicycles and somehow earns some
money for his living the revisionist. Some photographs of a shop named as
"Sahu Cycle" have been brought on record from page nos. 10 onwards of the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist. From perusal of the
same, it appears that the revisionist is running a cycle shop on which repairing
works of cycles and selling of cycles have been done. However, this Court is
of the prima facie opinion that in today's time when everyone has
motorcycles, scooters and cars, it is difficult to sell cycles and repairing work is
also very less. In this regard, the amount of total Rs. 12,000 per month
awarded by the trial court awarded in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 is
too much. The trial court has only relied upon the oral averment made by
opposite party no.2 has awarded the aforesaid interim maintenance allowance
in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 which prima facie according to this
Court is not correct in the eyes of law.

8. Keeping in mind the fact that at present the revisionist is not in job, this
Court is of the prima faice view that the amount of interim monthly
CRLR No. 7876 of 2025
3

maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned order
to the total tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month seems to be excessive and is liable
to be reduced.

9. Consequently, impugned interim order dated impugned interim order dated
15th October, 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in
Case No. 751 of 2025 (Smt. Priyanka & Others Vs. Ishan Sahu), under
Section 144 B.N.S.S. is modified to the extent now the revisionist shall pay
Rs. 6,000/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of
Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (son)
in place of Rs. 4,000/- per month towards interim maintenance allowance from
the date of filing of the instant application.

10. However, this Court may record that since the impugned order is an
interim order passed on the interim stay application filed in the proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which are pending consideration before the court
below for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as
documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will
have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court.

11. In the interest of substantial justice, this Court also directs that the trial
court shall conclude the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strictly in
accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajnesh
Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj
Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, by means of a reasoned and speaking
order, preferably within eight months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, if
there is no other legal impediment.

12. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance
allowance as awarded by the court below shall be calculated on the basis of
amount of interim maintenance allowance as fixed by this Court herein above
and after that if it is found that any amount has been paid in excess, the same
shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid.

13. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

March 18, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…