HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7756 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 1. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Chandauli in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2022, as well as the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Chandauli in Case No. 92 of 2016 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the proceedings initiated by O.P. No.2 under Section 12 of the Act, instituted on 15.03.2016 with respect to an alleged incident dated 05.12.2015, are delayed without any plausible explanation and are not maintainable in law. It is further contended that the revisionist appeared in the proceedings and filed his objections on 26.04.2017, and during trial both parties adduced evidence, including statements of O.P. No.2 as P.W.1 and the revisionist as D.W.1, along with documentary evidence to show that the revisionist has been regularly paying maintenance and bearing educational expenses of the children. However, the learned trial court, without proper appreciation of evidence, passed the order dated 07.04.2022 awarding Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.5,00,000/- as one-time compensation for mental, emotional, and physical abuse, which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 07.08.2024 without assigning cogent reasons. It is further submitted that both the courts below failed to consider that O.P. No.2 is already receiving Rs.4,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pursuant to a compromise, and is also in possession of about 3 bighas of agricultural land of the revisionist at village Ghatampur, P.S. Ahraura, District Mirzapur, as admitted in Original Suit No.335 of 2015 (Satyabhama Devi & others vs. Bhagwan Das), and has other means of livelihood, including occupation of a government 3. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Kumar Dixit Bhagwan Das .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) accommodation. It is thus argued that the courts below ignored material evidence relating to the income and liabilities of the parties, independent means of O.P. No.2, earning status of major sons residing with her, and the medical and financial condition of the revisionist, who is living in a rented accommodation after taking voluntary retirement, and passed the impugned orders in a routine manner without proper application of judicial mind. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the revision but could not dispute that the opposite party no.2 is receiving maintenance from other proceedings as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the record including the impugned orders, this Court finds that while granting monetary relief and compensation, the courts below have not adhered to the mandate of Section 20(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which requires that such relief must be fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living of the aggrieved person. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party no.2 is already receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, the amounts awarded in different proceedings are liable to be duly adjusted to avoid duplication. In the present case, the award of Rs.5,00,000/- as one-time compensation appears to be excessive and not commensurate with the material available on record, particularly in light of the financial condition of the revisionist and other attending circumstances. Accordingly, the compensation amount is reduced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Consequently, the orders dated 07.04.2022 and 07-08-2024 passed by the learned trial court are modified to the aforesaid extent. It is further directed that in case the opposite party no.2 is receiving maintenance from any other forum or proceedings, the same shall be duly adjusted in accordance with law, on the principle that the lesser amount shall be set off against the higher amount. 5. The revision is, accordingly, partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 6. March 19, 2026 pks CRLR No. 7756 of 2025 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad