Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30904 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1585 of 2017 Petitioner :- Sheela Singh Respondent :- Randhir Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Hridaya Narain Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Lal Behari Yadav Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been made to order dated 29.04.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Mau allowing the Civil Revision No. 27 of 2010 filed by respondent. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner and respondent were married according to Hindu rites and customs in the year 1991. Matrimonial dispute arose between the parties and respondent deserted the petitioner in the month of November, 1994. An application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 1996. The said application was contested by respondent-husband who had filed his reply. According to petitioner, the respondent-husband is in service of Central Reserve Police Force and is posted as Hawaldar. An application under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by petitioner claiming permanent alimony. The said application was opposed by respondent who filed his objections stating therein that petitioner is employed in the State Government and is working as Aaganwadi worker. The petitioner claims that she was only getting Rs.1263 per month while the respondent- husband who is in CRPF is getting more than Rs.25,000/- per month. The trial court after considering the application passed an order on 29.03.2010 granting maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month holding that basic pay of respondent-husband was Rs.8640/- while the petitioner was only getting Rs.1263/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, civil revision was preferred by respondent-husband which has been allowed by court below on the ground that the application under Section 25 has been moved after 14 years from filing of the application for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court had further held that there was no dire need of the money for petitioner, as such, the application was not maintainable and had allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by trial court granting maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court could not have allowed the revision and dismissed the application granting maintenance to petitioner on the ground that it was moved belatedly. According to him, there is no dispute as to the marriage solemnized between the parties and respondent- husband is bound to maintain his wife. Moreover, the application under Section 9 of Restitution of Conjugal Rights is still pending consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has defended the order passed by revisional court and submitted that petitioner herself is an Aaganwadi worker and is getting stipend from the State Government, as such, she is not entitled for the maintenance. 6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is an admitted case to both the parties that they were married according to Hindu rites and customs in the year 1991. Due to matrimonial discord between the parties, they have been living separately from the year 1994. The application for restitution of conjugal rights was moved in the year 1996 which had remained pending for a long time. The application moved by petitioner could not be thrown out by court below on the ground that it was moved after a great delay. It is the duty of the respondent-husband to maintain his wife and once it is the claim of the wife that the husband had deserted her in the year 1994, the wife is entitled for maintenance from the husband. 8. Further, the order of trial court clearly reveals that respondent- husband is posted in CRPF which has not been denied by respondent and is earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. The trial court had taken note of the argument from both side and had passed the reasoned order granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to respondent therein. The revisional court has been swayed away by the only fact that the application under Section 25 was moved after 14 years which could not be entertained by trial court. The reasoning given is not plausible and this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled for the maintenance as claimed by her from respondent-husband. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that order dated 29.04.2013 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. The order passed by trial court is restored forthwith. 10. The respondent-husband is directed to immediately pay the outstanding amount to petitioner within a period of one month. In case the said amount is not paid, the petitioner shall be at liberty for moving an application for getting the amount recovered from the salary account of the respondent. 11. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025//V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad