HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7402 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit are filed on behalf of the parties, which are taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present. 3. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Varanasi, in Case No.227 of 2016(CNR No. UPVR020013252016) (Smt. Jyoti Srivastava Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava), under section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the application moved by the revisionist/wife was partly allowed and opposite party no.2/husband was directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, from the date of order. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 solemnized on 26.01.2016 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals and revisionist's father spent approximately Rs.15,00,000/- on the marriage. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded a four wheeler as additional dowry. The mediators had stated that the opposite party no.2 was employed as an 'A.S.M.' (Area Sales Manager) at the Bhilai Branch of a company named 'Namaste India' and that he owned personal Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, G.A. Smt. Jyoti Srivastava .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) flats in Bhilai and Lucknow. Later, it was revealed that there is no Branch of 'Namaste India' exists in Bhilai at all and that the mediators had gotten the revisionist married by lying. On 17.02.2016, the opposite party no.2/husband left the revisionist/wife at her paternal home. On 13.06.2016, at around 3:00 P.M., the opposite party no.2 and his relatives came at the house of the revisionist and demanded dowry, on refusal they assaulted the revisionist gravely. Following this event, an F.I.R. was registered and since then the opposite party no.2 never inquired about the revisionist nor provided any maintenance. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the learned trial court concerned has erred in deciding the quantum of the maintenance and that the maintenance shall be payable from the dated of the order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324 has categorically held that maintenance should ordinarily be granted from the date of application, to prevent hardship and to ensure that the purpose of section 125 Cr.P.C. is fulfilled. Learned trial court concerned failed to consider the arrears amount of interim maintenance granted by order dated 21.11.2017, despite the admitted fact that a total of sum of Rs.14,000/- at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month has been paid by the opposite party no.2 only for 7 months out of 93 months, and the remaining arrears of Rs. 1,72,000/- for 86 months is still outstanding. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/husband vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of the revisionist and submit that the opposite party no.2 or his family never harassed the revisionist over additional dowry demand. A suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Matrimonial Case No.205 of 2016 (Alok Srivastava vs. Jyoti Srivastava) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been filed by the opposite party no.2/husband in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Ghazipur, which is pending. Revisionist is a highly educated woman and she teaches in a private school and knows tailoring and knitting very well, through which she earns an income of Rs.50,000/- per CRLR No. 7402 of 2025 2 month and since she is living separately without any reasonable cause, the revisionist is not entitled to receive any maintenance. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 shows that the learned trial court concerned allowed the application of the revisionist u/s 125 C.r.P.C. on the ground that a constant apprehension of threat to life and physical torture is a completely valid and justifiable ground for a wife to reside separately. In the absence of clear evidence, it was assumed that the revisionist is incapable of supporting herself. It is also worth mentioning here that an order dated 21.11.2017 was passed to provide interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month to the revisionist, during the trial. Therefore, keeping in view the social and economic status of both the parties the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist from the date of the decision, i.e. 17.09.2025. 8. Perused the records, it is a well established principal of law that when a party seeks enhancement of maintenance in revision, the High Courts hands are tied by the statutory limits of revisional jurisdiction. It is confined to examining legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness. The court may quash, remit, or set aside an order if it is perverse or illegal, but it does not substitute its own factual determination. Revisional power is not appellate power. The High Court cannot directly increase or decrease the maintenance amount in revision. The proper remedy for enhancement lies before the court which passed the order in the form of an Alteration petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, if circumstances have changed (e.g., increase in income, inflation, new needs of dependents). 9. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), at paragraph 128, while addressing the issue of overlapping jurisdiction and the need to avoid conflicting orders in different proceedings, directed in para 128.3:- "(iii) that if the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any modification or variation, it would have to be done in the same proceeding in which the order was passed." CRLR No. 7402 of 2025 3 10. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed circumstances afresh. Its role is supervisory correcting illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error. Enhancement necessarily requires proof of changed circumstances (increase in income, inflation, new needs, etc.). This involves adducing and evaluating fresh evidence, inviting objections from the non-applicant, and forming a factual opinion. 11. Revisional courts lack the power to conduct this evidentiary exercise. They cannot substitute their own factual findings for those of the trial court. The proper remedy would be to make a proper alteration petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, where evidence can be led and tested. Therefore, the revisionist is directed to approach the learned court concerned under Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS for the enhancement of the maintenance amount and the same shall decided by the learned court concerned in accordance with the law after hearing both the parties. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned impugned order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Varanasi, in Case No.227 of 2016(CNR No. UPVR020013252016) (Smt. Jyoti Srivastava Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava), under section 125 Cr.P.C., needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. May 15, 2026 VKG CRLR No. 7402 of 2025 4 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad