HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4137 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of revisionist during the course of the day, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Kamta Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Shri Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. 3. Perused the record. 4. Revisionist Dilip Kumar Sonkar has approached this Court by means of instant Criminal Revision challenging the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, First Banda (hereinafter referred to as appellate court) in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2023 (Dilip Kumar Sonkar Vs. Smt. Vandana and others) and order dated 28.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fast Track Court, Banda (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Case No. 397/9/2020 (Smt. Vandana and others Vs. Dilip Kumar Sonkar) under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and ordered the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- cash against Stridhan of opposite party no. 2 Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance for rent, Rs. 10,000/- per month for maintenance of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 in addition to that Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Akash Mishra, Anil Kumar, Kamta Prasad, Tripuresh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anjali Singh, G.A., Pushpendra Singh, Ray Sahab Yadav, Shri Chandra Dilip Kumar Sonkar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- ordered against mental agony of opposite party no. 2. Against that order the revisionist filed aforesaid appeal before appellate court wherein the appellate court ordered the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000/- as monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- against maintenance and Rs. 2,00,000/- against mental agony. 5. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has been filed on the grounds that the orders of trial court as well as appellate court are illegal, perverse, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, the maintenance order against revisionist has already been passed in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said amount is being paid by the revisionist continuously and a prayer for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the present criminal revision has been made. 6. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled for any maintenance from revisionist for the reasons that opposite party no. 2 had filed a divorce petition against the revisionist which was decreed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda on January, 5th 2026 wherein the opposite party no. 2 had prayed for payment of a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. The Principal Judge, Family Court ordered the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. The order of Principal Judge, Family Court Banda which occurs at page 12 to 17 of supplementary affidavit dated 31.05.2026 filed by revisionist in pursuance of aforesaid order dated January, 5th 2026 the opposite party no. 2 filed an execution petition bearing Execution Case No. 03/2026 (Vandana Vs. Dilip Kumar Sonkar) which was disposed of after full satisfaction by order dated 05.08.2026. Accordingly, the aforesaid permanent alimony of Rs. 8,00,000/- has already been paid by the revisionist, obviously the order dated January, 5th 2026 not only became final but it has been executed too. The existence of such order ceased the right of opposite party no. 2 to get maintenance from the revisionist. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist fairly admitted that the dependent children of the revisionist are receiving maintenance amount as ordered in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., and the same CRLR No. 4137 of 2024 2 has been regularly paid by the revisionist. It is thus contended that in view of aforesaid premise, the present criminal revision deserves to be allowed by this Court setting aside the impugned orders. 8. Per contra learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the criminal revision. But the opposite party no. 2 could not dislodge the submission of learned counsel for revisionist regarding the payment of the amount towards permanent alimony and the payment of maintenance to the dependent children in proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C. 9. Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of record, it is evident that the submissions urged by learned counsel for revisionist are clearly borne out from the record, therefore, the present criminal revision succeeds partly. Accordingly the present criminal revision is hereby partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, First Banda is hereby set aside to the extent of allowing the maintenance to opposite party no. 2 while order of appellate court regarding other remedies in favour of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 including amount against mental agony is upheld. September 28, 2026 Arti CRLR No. 4137 of 2024 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad