HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2517 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, and learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 as well as Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Criminal Case No. 122 of 2021 (Smt. Premwati alias Arti vs. Haresh Yadav) U/s 125 Cr.P.C. P.S. Naseerpur District Firozabad where by the learned trial court has rejected the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist mainly contended that the revisionist filed an application U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred as "D.V. Act") and the trial court while allowing the same award in maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist further stated that the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist was rejected by the trial court considering the fact that revisionist is already receiving Rs.10,000/- per month from the proceeding of Domestic Violence Act. It is further submitted that the award passed under D.V. Act cannot be a ground for rejection of application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance filed by the revisionist. Rather it shall be decided on merit and the amount of maintenance, if any, shall be adjusted in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Agnivesh, Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Tripathi Smt. Premwati @ Arti .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 12 and smaller amount shall be adjusted to the larger amount. As such the judgment impugned cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer made by the revisionist and has fairly conceded the fact that while passing the order in Domestic Violence Act, opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist, the trial court has not committed any illegality which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and argument advanced by both the parties and perusal of the impugned order dated 01.04.2024, it transpires that the trial court rejecting the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist considering the fact that the order passed in D.V. Act in which the amount of maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month already awarded in favour of the revisionist. 6. In view of this Court, the order of the trial court rejecting the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. is not in correct perspective rather it should be decided on merit, merely not mentioning the amount receiving or amount of maintenance awarded by any other forum cannot be a ground to reject the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. Maximum the proceeding U/s 340 Cr.P.C. can be initiated if required. Hence the order passed by the trial court is totally perverse and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned judgment 01.04.2024 is set aisde. 7. The instant matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the same afresh. It is therefore, provided that the Additional Princpal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad, shall consider and decide the instant application afresh, in accordance with law and the observations made above, by means of a reasond and speaking order, preferably within a period six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that in case, if the wife is receiving the amount of CRLR No. 2517 of 2024 2 maintenance from more than one forum, then the smaller amount shall be adjusted in larger amount as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra). 8. With the observation made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. September 22, 2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 2517 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad