Allahabad High Court

VIJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 12 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The High Court held that the trial court's findings that Neetu Yadav is the wife of Vijay Kumar and that the child is his issue are correct and not liable to be disturbed.

Summary

Vijay Kumar filed a revision challenging the Family Court's order granting maintenance to Neetu Yadav and her son under Section 125 of the CrPC. Kumar contended that Neetu was never his wife, that their engagement was cancelled, and that she later married another man, Pramod Kumar Yadav, who is the child's father. The trial court, however, held that Neetu was Kumar's wife and the child was his issue, ordering him to pay Rs.4,000 per month to Neetu and Rs.2,000 to the child. Kumar argued the lack of DNA testing and alleged dowry harassment by Neetu's family, while Neetu's counsel highlighted dowry demands and Kumar's alleged criminal charges. The High Court, relying on precedents such as Savitaben v. State of Gujarat and Rajnesh v. Neha, affirmed the trial court's findings and dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

Whether Neetu Yadav is legally the wife of Vijay Kumar for purposes of Section 125 CrPC.
Whether the child born to Neetu Yadav is the legitimate issue of Vijay Kumar.
Whether the trial court erred in not ordering a DNA test to establish paternity.
Whether the alleged dowry harassment and criminal charges affect the maintenance liability.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 494, 498-A, 504, 506

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
marriage validity
paternity
dowry harassment
family law
revision
DNA test

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 891 of 2025

Vijay Kumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vivek Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sadhana Maurya

Court No. - 88
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present.

2. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and
order dated 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court Ist, Jaunpur, in Case No.997 of 2021(CNR
No.UPJP20016842021)(Neetu Yadav Vs. Vijay Kumar), by which the
application under section 125 Cr.P.C., moved by the opposite party nos.2 &
4, was partly allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4000/- per
month to the opposite party no.2/wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the
opposite party no.3/minor son, as maintenance, from the date of application
i.e. 16.07.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 is
not the wife and only the engagement between the revisionist and opposite
party no.2 was held on 26.05.2017 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and
date was fixed for marriage for 04.12.2017 with the consent of both the
parties. He further submits that one Pramod Kumar Yadav came to the house
of the revisionist and said that he was in relationship with opposite party
no.2/Neetu Yadav and if the revisionist will marry the opposite party no.2 he
will make the objectional videos of opposite party no.2 viral. Thereafter, the
revisionist refused to marry with opposite party no.2 and the family of both
the parties came to the conclusion that the marriage fixed for 04.12.2017
between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 be cancelled on 28.08.2017
CRLR No. 891 of 2025
2

and the expenses of the engagement of Rs.50,000/- was returned by the
revisionist through the bank account of revisionist mother
No.33828691708 to the bank account of the father of opposite party no.2
No.20049881482. Thereafter, the marriage of opposite party no.2 was
solemnized with said Pramod Kumar Yadav (her boyfriend) on 14.04.2018
and they are now living as husband and wife and with their wedlock the one
male child was born on 04.02.2019, namely Aarav Yadav/opposite party
no.3.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the opposite
party no.2 falsely lodged the first information report on 07.07.2021 against
the revisionist being Case Crime No.116 of 2021, under sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506, 494, IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act. Thereafter, the opposite
party no.2 also filed a suit No.997 of 2021, under section 125 Cr.P.C. for
maintenance on 16.07.2021 against the revisionist. The revisionist filed his
reply on 13.01.2022 in the said proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., where
denied the allegations of opposite party no.2. Thereafter, the opposite party
no.2 filed her counter reply on 03.08.2023. The opposite party no.2 in
support of her marriage with the revisionist has made a forged marriage
invitation card as well as invitation list dated 26.05.202017. The learned trial
court recorded the statement of the opposite party no.2, as P.W.-1 and
recorded the statement of mediator as P.W.-2 and also recorded the
statements of the revisionist as D.W.-1, D.W.-2 Kamla Prasad Yadav, D.W.-
3 Hirqawati (Mother of the revisionist) and illegally passed the impugned
order dated 23.12.2024 granting maintenance to the opposite party nos.2 and
3.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 has
vehemently opposed the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the
revisionist and submitted that learned trial court has rightly passed the
impugned order after hearing both the parties and considering the claim of
the opposite party no.2, objection filed by the revisionist and counter
CRLR No. 891 of 2025
3

objection filed by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court concerned. It
is further submitted that at the wedding, opposite party no.2's parents had
gifted the revisionist Rs.1 lakh in cash and other household items, etc. but
after the marriage, the revisionist and his family demanded Rs.2 lakh and a
Motorcycle as additional dowry and harassed the opposite party no.2 for not
fulfilling the demand. Meanwhile, on 06.07.2021, the revisionist secretly
married another woman, on the other hand the opposite party nos. 2 and 3
are confined to the paternal home of the opposite party no.2 since August
2019.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 further contends that
the revisionist lives in Saudi Arabia and earns a good living, earning a
monthly income of Rs.1 lakh. He has a farm at home from which he is
earning additional income. Parents of the opposite party no.2 are very poor
and unable to support her and opposite party no.3. Additionally, opposite
party no.2 is also poorly educated and lacks any skills to support herself and
her child.

7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 shows that the learned
trial court allowed the maintenance application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. moved by
the opposite party nos.2 and 3, primarily on the ground that after the
examination of oral and documentary evidence it was concluded that
opposite party no.2 is the married wife of the revisionist. Since opposite
party no.3 was born during the subsistence of the marital relationship
between the parties and it is also concluded that opposite party no.3/minor
son is the child of both parties. It has also been proven that the revisionist
harassed opposite party no.2 for additional dowry demands and the court
took cognizance of the charge sheet filed against the revisionist and his
family under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 494 of the Indian Penal Code
and 3/4 of the D.P. Act, in FIR No.116 of 2021 and summoned the
revisionist/accused for trial under the aforementioned sections. This gives
credence to the opposite party no.2's allegation made in the application
CRLR No. 891 of 2025
4

under section 125 of the C.r.P.C that she was harassed by the revisionist and
his family for additional dowry demands. No documentary or oral evidence
has been filed by the opposite party no.2 from which a clear assessment of
the revisionist income can be made. It is pertinent to mention that although
the revisionist has denied the paternity of opposite party no.3, but he did not
make any attempt before the trial court to have DNA test conducted to
challenge the paternity of opposite party no.3. In the circumstance, the
finding of trial court that opposite party no.2 is the wife and opposite party
no.3 is the son of the revisionist. Therefore, the finding of the trial court
concerned cannot be disturbed. Learned trial court has placed reliance in the
case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SSC 636,
in which The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a judicial decision that it is
the husband's duty to maintain his wife. He cannot be allowed to plead that
he is unable to earn a living and is unable to support her due to financial
constraints. Keeping in light the guidelines of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2
SCC 324, the learned trial court concerned directed the revisionist to pay
Rs.4000/- per month to opposite party no.2/wife, and Rs.2,000/- per month
to opposite party no.3/minor son, till he attains majority, from the date of
filing of the suit, i.e., 16.07.2021, totalling Rs.6,000/- per month. 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 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court Ist, Jaunpur, in Case No.997 of 2021(CNR
No.UPJP20016842021)(Neetu Yadav Vs. Vijay Kumar), 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…