Allahabad High Court

MUKESH MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 12 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The High Court held that the trial court's maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC was justified and not liable to interference.

Summary

Mukesh Maurya appealed a maintenance order passed by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court, Jaunpur, which required him to pay Rs.3,000 per month to his wife (opposite party no.2) and Rs.1,000 per month to his minor son (opposite party no.3) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The husband argued that the amounts were beyond his financial capacity, while the State contended that the wife had been subjected to dowry harassment and physical assault, rendering her unable to support herself. The trial court had found that the husband, a labourer, was capable of earning and therefore liable to maintain his wife and child. Relying on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat, the High Court held that the trial court’s reasoning was sound and that the husband could not escape his statutory duty on the ground of alleged poverty. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, leaving the maintenance order intact.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can interfere with a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC on the ground of the husband’s alleged inability to pay
Whether the facts of dowry harassment and physical assault justify the award of maintenance to the wife and child
Whether the trial court correctly applied the principle that a husband’s duty to maintain cannot be waived by claiming financial constraints

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
dowry harassment
marital duty
family law
revision

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8533 of 2025

Mukesh Maurya
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sakshi Patel, Shiv Naresh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Ms. Sakshi Patel, learned counsel for the for revisionist and learned AGA
for the State are present.

2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 and 3, even in the
revised call.

3. As per office report dated 21.04.2026, notice has served upon opposite
party nos.2 and 3, but no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
opposite party nos.2 and 3 as yet. Hence the Court proceeds to hear the
matter with the assistance of learned counsel for the revisionist and learned
AGA for the State.

4. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and
order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court-III, Jaunpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.1635 of 2020(Kiran
Maurya and others Vs. Mukesh Maurya), by which the application under
section 125 Cr.P.C., moved by the opposite party nos.2 & 3, was partly
allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the
opposite party no.2/wife, from the date of application i.e. 14.10.2020 and
Rs.1000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/minor son, as maintenance,
from the date when his impleaded as party in the application i.e. 20.06.2022.

5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that marriage between the
CRLR No. 8533 of 2025
2

revisionist and opposite party nos.2 was solemnized on 29.04.2018 in
accordance with Hindu Rituals and Rites. Opposite party no.2 without any
valid and sufficient reason, does not want to live with the revisionist and is
of stubborn nature. She has been living at her paternal home without any
reasonable grounds at her own sweet will. Due to lockdown, the revisionist
became financially strapped and and left the revisionist. The revisionist is
ready to maintain the opposite party nos.2 and 3 according to his financial
status but the impugned order directing the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per
month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party no.3 is
beyond his financial capacity.

6. Per contra, learned AGA for the state vehemently opposed the arguments
advanced by the counsel of revisionist and submit that after the marriage, the
opposite party no.2 was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and
neglected the basic needs for food and clothes. On 06.10.2020, at around
10:00 P.M. demanding the additional dowry, the revisionist and his family
members brutally kicked and punched the opposite party no.2 and drove her
out of the house in her clothes, threatening to kill her if she returned home
without one lakh rupees and an Apache motorcycle. The learned trial court
has rightly granted maintenance amount to the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 shows that the learned
trial court allowed the application for maintenance u/s 125 C.r.P.C primarily
on the ground that the husband has a responsibility to provide a happy home
for his wife and child. From all these facts, it is clear that the opposite party
no.2 was beaten and tortured for dowry, which is why she and opposite party
no.3 are living separately from the revisionist. Opposite party no.2 possesses
no skills other than housework. Contrary to this, the revisionist has not made
any statement regarding the income of opposite party no.2 in its affidavit,
which appears to suggest that the revisionist is implicitly admitting that the
opposite party no.2 possesses no skills. Thus, the opposite party no.2 is
incapable to support herself and opposite party no.3 on her own. The
revisionist is a labourer and is capable of earning income. Relying on the
CRLR No. 8533 of 2025
3

case of, Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC
636, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that it is the husband's duty to
maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to earn a
living and is unable to support her due to financial constraints the learned
trial court concerned directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to
the opposite party no.2/wife, from the date of application i.e. 14.10.2020 and
Rs.1000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/minor son, as maintenance,
from the date when his impleaded as party in the application i.e.
20.06.2022. The learned trial court impugned order is very well reasoned
and justified, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court.

8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
dated 25.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-III, Jaunpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.1635 of 2020(Kiran Maurya
and others Vs. Mukesh Maurya), by which the application under section 125
Cr.P.C., needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable
to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
May 13, 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…