Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 121869 (ALL)

SMT. REKHA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO AND ANOTHER

CRLR/149/2025 · 2025-02-06

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7692 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 149 of 2025 Revisionist :- Smt. Rekha And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. The present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2025, passed by the Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Raebareli, in Case No. 812 of 2021 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., by which the application filed by respondent no.2 has been allowed and the respondent no.2 has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to revisionist no.1 and Rs. 3,000/- to revisionist no.2, Km. Vanevi Verma, his minor child until she attains majority, from the date of the application. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that according to the payslip of January 2021, the salary of respondent no. 2 is Rs.36,112/- per month, therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded in favor of revisionists nos. 1 and 2 is on the lower side. Perused the record. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that a total of Rs. 9,000/- has been directed to be paid to revisionists nos. 1 and 2. Out of Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- has been directed to be paid to revisionist no. 2, who is his minor child. Thus, approximately 25 percent of the salary has been directed to be paid to the revisionists. In case, there is a change in circumstances and a higher salary is being drawn by respondent no. 2 currently or in the future, the revisionists shall be entitled to file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for an alteration in the maintenance allowance. There appears to be no illegality in the order impugned. The revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the revisionists to approach the learned court below in future if they are able to show proof of a change in the circumstances of respondent no. 2 for awarding the monthly allowance for the maintenance, thus, modification/alteration in the allowance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. can be sought by the revisionists at appropriate stage upon proof of changed circumstances. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench