Allahabad High Court

ANURAG YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The revision is dismissed and the trial court’s orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are affirmed.

Summary

Anurag Yadav and another appealed a trial court order that directed the husband to pay Rs.4,000 as house rent, Rs.6,000 as monthly maintenance and Rs.2 lakh as compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The husband contended that he earned only Rs.450 per day, was already paying maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and that the wife never lived with him, thus the domestic‑violence claim was baseless. The wife alleged dowry harassment, medical weakness, and inability to earn, and the trial court relied on her statement and a District Probation Officer’s report to find her a victim of domestic violence. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s order, and the revision petition sought its reversal. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, held that the trial court had correctly applied the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

Whether the husband is liable to pay maintenance and compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act despite claiming insufficient income and existing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Whether the evidence on record establishes the occurrence of domestic violence and dowry harassment.
Whether a second maintenance order under the Domestic Violence Act can be awarded when maintenance under Cr.P.C. is already being paid.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12, 22, 29

Subjects

Domestic Violence
Maintenance
Compensation
Section 12 PWDVA
Section 22 PWDVA
Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Revision
Dowry Harassment

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7906 of 2025

Anurag Yadav And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Kumar Asthana
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi, G.A.

Court No. - 88
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present.

2. Present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the
impugned order dated 30.09.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Azamgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2025 (Anurag Yadav & Another
Vs. Sonal Yadav), u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, by which the learned appellate court has rejected the
criminal appeal of revisionists and upheld the ex-party order dated
21.03.2025 passed by the learned trial court. The revisionist has filed
revision against and the impugned order dated 21.03.2025, passed by the
Judicial Officer, Gram Nyalaya, Mehnagar, Azamgarh, in Case No.03 of
2024 (Sonal Yadav Vs. Anurag Yadav & Others), u/s 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by which learned trial court has
directed the revisionist no.1/husband to pay Rs.4000/- to the opposite party
no.2/wife towards house rent and Rs.6000/- per month as maintenance, from
the date of application (total Rs.10,000/-) and also directed to pay Rs.2 lakh
towards section 22 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 30.11.2020 marriage of
revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2 solemnized in accordance with
Hindu Rites and Rituals. The opposite party no.2 never lived with the
CRLR No. 7906 of 2025
2

revisionists and she is not a victim of domestic violence as alleged, nor has
the revisionists ever lived in a shared household with the opposite party no.2.
The learned trial court concerned has not considered the fact that the
revisionist no.1 is simply a MANREGA labourer and earns just Rs.450/- per
day and only on few days he found work, thus he does not earn enough to
support the opposite party no.2. Revisionist no.1 is already paying the
maintenance awarded under section 125 Cr.P.C. to the opposite party no.2
and thus second maintenance amount under the Domestic Violence Act is
not permissible.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2
vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of revisionists
and submit that opposite party no.2 family has given a dowry of
Rs.2,51,000/- in cash and other expensive household items. After the
marriage, the revisionists and his family harassed the opposite party no.2 for
bringing insufficient dowry. The opposite party no.2 has become very weak
due to the harassment of the revisionist no.1/husband and his family and has
become a victim of Domestic Violence and is surviving only on medical
treatment. The opposite party no.2 is poorly educated and lacks any skills
and is unable to earn a living. The revisionist no.1 is quite wealthy, earning
Rs.50,000/- per month from a company and Rs.20,000/- per month from
farming.

5. Perusal of the impugned orders dated 30.09.2025 and 21.03.2025 shows
that the learned trial court concerned allowed the complaint of the opposite
party no.2 under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 primarily on the
ground that the revisionists were unable to provide any material
fact/inconsistency to the court that he could disprove the allegation of
Domestic Violence against the opposite party no.2. The District Probation
Officer/Security Officer's report dated 13.09.2023 also corroborates the
statements of opposite party no.2. No evidence was produced to contradict
the statement of opposite party no.2 regarding the income of the revisionist
no.1/husband, therefore it was concluded by the learned trial court that
CRLR No. 7906 of 2025
3

revisionist no.1 is capable to provide the maintenance to the opposite party
no.2/wife. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the learned trial court
concerned directed the revisionist no.1/husband to pay Rs.4000/- to the
opposite party no.2/wife towards house rent and Rs.6000/- per month as
maintenance, from the date of application (total Rs.10,000/-), from the u/s 12
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and also
directed to pay Rs.2 lakh towards section 22 of Domestic Violence Act,
2005. The revisionists has not filed any affidavit before the learned trial
court in the light of the judgement of Rajnesh vs. Neha (Supra) before the
learned trial court and also not filed any recall application for the recalling
the ex-party order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned trial court,
therefore, the learned trial court impugned order as well as order of appellant
court are very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants no interference
by this Court.

6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
dated 30.09.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in Criminal
Appeal No.52 of 2025 (Anurag Yadav & Another Vs. Sonal Yadav), u/s 29
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the ex-
party order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Officer, Gram Nyalaya,
Mehnagar, Azamgarh, in Case No.03 of 2024 (Sonal Yadav Vs. Anurag
Yadav & Others), u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, needs no interference by this Court and the present
revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
May 14, 2026
VKG
(Achal Sachdev,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…