HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2448 of 2024 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 seeks further time to file counter affidavit. 3. Perusal of order sheet shows that vide order dated 03.02.2026, two weeks and no more time was granted to the opposite party no.2 to file counter affidavit in the matter. 4. In the circumstances, the opportunity to file counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 is hereby closed. 5. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, in Case No.667 of 2018 (Bharti Singh and another Vs. Nitin Panwar), U/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Janakpuri, District Saharanpur, by which the learned trial court has allowed the application of the revisionists, filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the opposite party no.2/husband to pay Rs.5500/-(as Rs.3000/- to the revisionist no.1/wife and Rs.2500/- to the revisionist no.2/minor son) from the date of filing application, under section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 16.07.2018. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashutosh Sharma, Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, Nitesh Kumar Jauhari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kartikey Mishra, Sandeep Tripathi Bharti Singh And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned Counsel of the revisionists submit that the marriage between revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 05.02.2007 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals. Soon after marriage, she was taunted and harassed for bringing less dowry and had to undergo involuntary abortion in the year 2007 on the ground of the child being a girl. An additional dowry on different occasions were given to the opposite party no.2 yet the taunts on insufficient dowry never ended. The son Devansh (herein revisionist no. 2) was born on 29 November 2012. 7. It is further submitted by counsel for the revisionists that on 30.11.2013, the opposite party no.2 and his family assaulted the revisionist no.1 and kicked her out of the house, since then she has been living in her paternal home without any source of income to support herself and her son. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the opposite party no.2 is a wealthy individual who owns approximately 36 bighas of agricultural land in his father's name and his annual income is approximately Rs.12 Lakhs. In the year 2020, the opposite party no. 2 purchased a Fortuner Car from one Om Veer Singh and on failure of receiving registration documents, the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur. One Dharmendra Kumar borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from the opposite party no.2 and for it encashment Dharmendra Kumar handed over the cheque no.007678 dated 30.06.2023 to the revisionist but unfortunately when the opposite party no.2 presented the same for its encashment the same was dishonored and opposite party no.2 lodged complaint against the Dharmendra Kumar for the offence under section 138 N.1. Act, on 20.09.2023. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid arguments and submitted that the revisionist no.1 is living separately without any reasonable cause and is qualified enough to support herself and son. The opposite party no.2 on the other hand is unemployed and the revisionist no.1 CRLR No. 2448 of 2024 2 could not submit any evidence regarding the opposite party no.2 assets or income. 10. Perusal of the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2024 indicates that revisionist no.1/wife has filed an affidavit dated 13.08.2021 disclosing her monthly household, medical and traveling expenses etc. at Rs.30,000/-. She has further stated that she has a minor son aged about 9 years, who is entirely dependent upon her for his basic necessities as well as educational expenses. It is further averred that the minor son is suffering from an eye ailment and his treatment is undergoing in AIIMS, Delhi, on account of which an additional expenditure of approximately Rs.15,000/- per month is being incurred on treatment and studies. An additional of Rs.5000/- is also incurred on clothes, food and other miscellaneous expenses of the said minor son. The revisionist has also disclosed that the income of her husband/opposite party no.2 is approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month. In the affidavit she further states that opposite party no.2 is the sole son of his father, who owns certain properties, however, since the said properties are not in the name of opposite party no.2, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing his income. 11. The learned trial court, in its impugned judgment dated 05.03.2024, has recorded that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 and that there exists no ground to deny maintenance to the revisionist no.1/applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, the learned trial court failed to take into consideration the averments made by revisionist no.1/applicant in her affidavit regarding the income of opposite party no.2 and his job description. Notably, opposite party no.2 has not specifically denied the contents of the said affidavit. 12. The learned trial court, in the impugned judgment, has merely observed that, keeping in view the prevailing inflation, a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded to revisionist no.1 and Rs.2,500/- to revisionist no.2 towards maintenance. However, the said determination has been made without due CRLR No. 2448 of 2024 3 consideration of the contents of the affidavit filed by revisionist no.1/wife, wherein it has been specifically stated that the income of her husband/opposite party no.2 is approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Moreover, no cogent finding as to how the quantum of the meager maintenance amount of Rs.5500/- was awarded by the learned court. 13. In view of the prevailing rate of inflation, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set- aside. 14. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, in Case No.667 of 2018 (Bharti Singh and another Vs. Nitin Panwar), U/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Janakpuri, District Saharanpur, is hereby set-aside. 15. The matter is remanded to the learned court concerned to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law, particularly in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. 16. During the period of pendency of the matter before the court concerned, the opposite party no.2 is directed to pay the amount as awarded by impugned order dated 05.03.2024 i.e. Rs.3000/- to the revisionist no.1/wife and Rs.2,500/- to the revisionist no.2/son, as interim maintenance. 17. With the aforesaid observation, the present revision u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. is hereby disposed of. May 4, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 2448 of 2024 4 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad