Allahabad High Court
SHAILESH KUMARversusSMT. SANJU AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The earlier revision petition is dismissed as infructuous because the 2016 order has merged into the later 2025 order.
Summary
The husband, Shailesh Kumar Raina, challenged an order dated 8 December 2016 of the Family Court, Gorakhpur, which had partially allowed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application by his wife and minor daughter, fixing monthly maintenance of Rs 8,000 and Rs 5,000 respectively. Subsequently, a separate revision (No. 901 of 2025) under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance on changed circumstances; that petition was allowed, raising the husband’s salary to about Rs 1,00,000 per month. The present revision (No. 925 of 2017) sought to contest the 2016 order, but the court held that the earlier order had merged into the later 2025 order and therefore there was nothing left to adjudicate. Consequently, the court dismissed the 2016 revision as infructuous. The decision rests on the principle that a later order supersedes and merges the earlier one when it addresses the same relief.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a later order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. enhancing maintenance on an earlier order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 127
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- Section 127 CrPC
- revision
- infructuous
- family law
- changed circumstances
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 925 of 2017
Shailesh Kumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Smt. Sanju And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma, Dhirendra
Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Rajendra
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Husband- Shailesh Kumar Raina is aggrieved against the order dated
08.12.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 235 of 2007 passed by Principal
Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, whereby the application filed by
opposite party nos.1 & 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been partly
allowed by awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- & Rs.5000/- in
favour of the wife and minor daughter, respectively.
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Nishad, Advocate appears on behalf of the husband
in the connected Revision No.901 of 2025, wherein the order dated
04.02.2025 passed U/s 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no.1 and 2
for enhancement of maintenance under changed circumstances has been
allowed, but according to the learned counsel, he is not appearing in this
revision petition 925 of 2017, which was filed by Mr. B.R. Sharma,
Advocate.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties has stated that at the time of
accepting the claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the monthly salary of
husband was approximately Rs.39,000/- and with the passage of time, not
only the needs of the opposite parties increased, but the salary of the
husband also hiked to approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
However, learned counsel for the opposite parties has not disputed the
fact that pursuant to the impugned order dated 8.12.2016, the monthly
maintenance is being paid regularly to the opposite party nos.1 and 2.
CRLR No. 925 of 2017
2
Considering the above background, particularly the subsequent event
whereby maintenance has been enhanced under Section 127 Cr.P.C., on
changed circumstances, nothing survives for adjudication in the revision
petition, as the order dated 8th December, 2016 has merged in the order
dated 4.2.2025, which is the subject matter of Criminal Revision No.901
of 2025.
Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
May 4, 2026
Raj
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…