# Abhishek Singh Yadav Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1155
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2024
- **Bench:** Madan Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhishek-singh-yadav-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53869
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable
against a minor husband, and whether
recovery proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C.
are
barred
on
that
ground;
(ii) Whether the quantum of maintenance
awarded required modification in light of the
husband attaining majority during proceedings
and the principles governing assessment of
income and proportionality.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.
125, 128 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - ss.
10, 18 - Maintenance - Proceedings
against minor husband - Maintainability
-
Attainment
of
majority
-
Commencement of liability - Assessment
of income - Proportionality - Revisional
interference - Modification of quantum.

Held:
Proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are governed exclusively by
the Cr.P.C. and not by the Code of Civil
Procedure. There is no statutory bar under
Section 125 or Section 128 Cr.P.C. against
initiation of maintenance proceedings against a
husband who was minor at the time of filing of
the
application.
The
objection
as
to
maintainability on the ground of minority was
therefore unsustainable. [Paras 14-17]

For
determination
of
age,
high
school
examination certificate carries primacy. On the
basis of such certificate, the revisionist was
found to have attained the age of majority on
01.01.2021. A minor husband cannot be
presumed to have sufficient means; however,
upon attaining majority, the legal obligation to
maintain his wife and minor child arises. [Paras
22-25]

In absence of proof of actual income, the
Court is entitled to make a reasonable
estimation of earning capacity, particularly
where the husband is able-bodied. The Court
applied settled principles that maintenance
should
be
realistic
and
proportionate,
ordinarily not exceeding 25% of the net
income, and must avoid both excessiveness
and inadequacy. [Paras 27-29]

The maintenance awarded by the Family Court
was found to be disproportionate to the
estimated income. Accordingly, the order was
modified, fixing maintenance at ₹2,500 per
month to the wife and ₹2,000 per month to the
minor daughter, payable from 01.01.2021, i.e.,
the date on which the revisionist attained
majority.
Arrears
were
directed
to
be
recalculated accordingly, with adjustment of any
excess payment. [Paras 29-32]

Criminal revision partly allowed to the above
extent. [Para 32] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 -
applied; Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr.) v. Raj
Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129-relied on.
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Family Courts
Act, 1984.

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Minor husband; Maintainability;
Attainment of majority; Commencement of
liability; Assessment of income; Proportionality;
Revisional
jurisdiction;
Modification
of
maintenance.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 22.11.2023 passed
by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
No.1, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.
1546 of 2019 (Smt. Sheela Devi & Another v.
Abhishek Yadav), Police Station Visharatganj,
District Bareilly.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri S. M. Iqbal Hasan
For the Opposite Party: Sri Ravindra Kumar,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Purushottam
Pandey
For the State: Learned Government Advocate

## Text

9 All. Abhishek Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1155

19. Needless to say that in any case if
the litigating parties feel aggrieved by the
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
dated
06.05.2025
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Principal Judge-VI, Family
Court, Lucknow, it is open for them to
avail appropriate legal recourse in respect
of the same in the manner as prescribed
under law.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1155
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2024

Abhishek Singh Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
S.M. Iqbal Hasan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Purushottam Pandey

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether an application for maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable
against a minor husband, and whether
recovery proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C.
are
barred
on
that
ground;
(ii) Whether the quantum of maintenance
awarded required modification in light of the
husband attaining majority during proceedings
and the principles governing assessment of
income and proportionality.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.
125, 128 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - ss.
10, 18 - Maintenance - Proceedings
against minor husband - Maintainability
-
Attainment
of
majority
-
Commencement of liability - Assessment
of income - Proportionality - Revisional
interference - Modification of quantum.

Held:
Proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are governed exclusively by
the Cr.P.C. and not by the Code of Civil
Procedure. There is no statutory bar under
Section 125 or Section 128 Cr.P.C. against
initiation of maintenance proceedings against a
husband who was minor at the time of filing of
the
application.
The
objection
as
to
maintainability on the ground of minority was
therefore unsustainable. [Paras 14-17]

For
determination
of
age,
high
school
examination certificate carries primacy. On the
basis of such certificate, the revisionist was
found to have attained the age of majority on
01.01.2021. A minor husband cannot be
presumed to have sufficient means; however,
upon attaining majority, the legal obligation to
maintain his wife and minor child arises. [Paras
22-25]

In absence of proof of actual income, the
Court is entitled to make a reasonable
estimation of earning capacity, particularly
where the husband is able-bodied. The Court
applied settled principles that maintenance
should
be
realistic
and
proportionate,
ordinarily not exceeding 25% of the net
income, and must avoid both excessiveness
and inadequacy. [Paras 27-29]

The maintenance awarded by the Family Court
was found to be disproportionate to the
estimated income. Accordingly, the order was
modified, fixing maintenance at ₹2,500 per
month to the wife and ₹2,000 per month to the
minor daughter, payable from 01.01.2021, i.e.,
the date on which the revisionist attained
majority.
Arrears
were
directed
to
be
recalculated accordingly, with adjustment of any
excess payment. [Paras 29-32]

Criminal revision partly allowed to the above
extent. [Para 32] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 -
applied; Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr.) v. Raj
Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129-relied on.
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Family Courts
Act, 1984.

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Minor husband; Maintainability;
Attainment of majority; Commencement of
liability; Assessment of income; Proportionality;
Revisional
jurisdiction;
Modification
of
maintenance.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 22.11.2023 passed
by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
No.1, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.
1546 of 2019 (Smt. Sheela Devi & Another v.
Abhishek Yadav), Police Station Visharatganj,
District Bareilly.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri S. M. Iqbal Hasan
For the Opposite Party: Sri Ravindra Kumar,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Purushottam
Pandey
For the State: Learned Government Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh, J.)

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf
of the revisionist and the supplementary
counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite
party nos. 2 and 3 in the Court today are
taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. S.M. Iqbal Hasan,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr.
Ravindra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Purushottam Pandey, learned counsel
for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and the
learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed
by the revisionist under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the
judgment and order dated 22nd November,
2023 passed by the Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court No.1, Bareilly in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 1546 of 2019
(Smt. Sheela Devi & Another Vs. Abhishek
Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police
Station-Visharatganj,
District-Bareilly,
whereby the trial court while allowing the
instant application of the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 has directed the revisionist to
pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party
no.2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite
party no.3 towards monthly maintenance
allowance from the date of filing of the
instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that it is no doubt true that the
marriage of the revisionist has been
solemnized with opposite party no.2 on
10th July, 2016 and from the aforesaid
wedlock opposite party no.3 was born on
21st September, 2018. At the time of
marriage the revisionist was about 13 years
old. It is further submitted that at the time
of filing of instant application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. by opposite party nos.
2 and 3 i.e. 10th February, 2019, the age of
the revisionist was about 16 years, which is
evident from his high school examination
mark-sheet-cum certificate in which his
date of birth is mentioned as "1st January,
2003", a copy of which has been brought
on record at page 69 of the paper book. He
submits that since the revisionist was
minor, no maintenance case could be filed
or maintainable against a minor, inasmuch
as the same could only be filed through
his/her guardian according to the provisions
of Code of Civil Procedure read with
Sections 10 and 18 of the Family Court
Act, 1984. Qua the issue raised above, the
provisions of Criminal Procedure Code is
constant, the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure shall be applicable. Since the
instant application filed by opposite party
no.2 against the revisionist when he was
minor without impleading his guardian, the
execution proceedings under Section 128
Cr.P.C. pursuant to the judgment passed in
9 All. Abhishek Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1157
the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
can also not be executed. As such, the
instant application under Section 125
Cr.P.C.
is
maintainable
against
the
revisionist as who was minor at the relevant
time and also the execution proceedings
initiated against the revisionist cannot be
legally sustained is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
again submits that since the opposite party
no.2 has refused to live with her husband
i.e. the revisionist without any sufficient
cause, therefore, as per Section 125 (4)
Cr.P.C. she is not entitled to get any
maintenance allowance from him.

6. The learned counsel for the
revisionist next submits that the revisionist
is a student and he has no source of
income, he is dependent upon his parents,
whereas the trial court without appreciating
evidence available on record with regard to
his income, has wrongly assessed the
monthly income of the revisionist as
Rs.25,000/- per month to Rs. 30,000/- per
month. Learned counsel for the revisionist
then submits that even if it is assumed that
the revisionist is an able bodied person, he
may somehow earn Rs. 10,000/- per. Under
such
circumstances,
amount
of
total
maintenance allowance i.e. Rs. 9,000/-per
month (Rs. 5,000/-+Rs.4,000/-) as awarded
by the trial court under the impugned
judgment is too excessive and exorbitant
and against the settled law by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324.

7. On the above premise, learned
counsel for the revisionist submits that
since the trial court while allowing the
instant application filed by opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has
committed gross error, the same is liable to
be set aside.

8. On the other-hand, the learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the
learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed
the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the revisionist by submitting
that the appellate court has not committed
any illegality or infirmity in passing the
impugned judgment and awarding Rs.
5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2
(wife) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to
opposite party no.3 (minor daughter)
towards maintenance allowance from the
date of filing of the instant application, so
as to warrant any interference by this Court
in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

9. Besides the above, learned counsel
for opposite party no.2 submits that the
submission of the learned counsel for the
revisionist that at the time of filing of
instant application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. i.e. 10th February, 2019, the age of
the revisionist was 25 years and he was not
minor at that time, as is evident from the
written statements filed by the revisionist
before the trial court, which has been
brought on record at page 44 onwards of
the paper book. He, however, submits that
the date of birth mentioned in high school
examination mark-sheet-cum-certificate as
1st January, 2003 is not disputed.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 further submits that since the opposite
party no.2 is legally wedded wife and the
opposite party no.3 is real minor daughter
of the revisionist, on account of the fact
that at the time of filing of instant
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. he
was minor, he cannot shirk upon his pious
responsibility to maintain his wife and
daughter. There is no bar in the Code of
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Procedure which prohibits a wife
to initiate proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. against her minor husband and also
no recovery proceedings can be executed
against such husband. Even otherwise,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2
submits that the aforesaid issues have not
been raised before the trial court, where the
same can be adjudicated upon by the trial
court through oral as well as documentary
evidence and for the first time such issues
have been raised before the revisional
court. As such, this Court may not examine
the same at this stage in exercise of its
powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

11. Learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 then submits that the revisionist is
living in a joint Hindu family and 55 bighas
of agricultural land, one XYLO Car and a
tractor are in the name of his father.
Keeping in mind the total income of the
joint family and his share in the same, the
total amount of monthly maintenance
allowance i.e. total Rs. 9,000/- per month in
favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under
the impugned judgment is reasonable,
realistic and justifiable and the same cannot
be interfered with by this Court in exercise
of revisional jurisdiction and also there is
no bar that pursuant looking to the present
scenario and inflation, the amount of
maintenance allowance as awarded by the
appellate
court
under
the
impugned
judgment cannot be said to be excessive or
exorbitant.

12. On the above premise, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that
since the appellate court while passing the
impugned judgment has not committed any
error in the eyes of law, therefore, present
criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

13. I have considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties as
well as perused of record including the
impugned judgment.

14. So far as the first submission of
the learned counsel for the revisionist that
since the revisionist at the time of filing of
instant application was minor, therefore,
such application could not be maintainable
and also the recovery proceeding so
initiated pursuant to any order passed
therein could also not be executed, is
concerned, this Court may record that as
per Sections 10 and 18 of the Family Court
Act, Chapter-IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, wherein Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
contained, is not applicable. For ready
reference, Section 10 and 18 of the Family
Court Act read as under:

"Section 10. Procedure General:

(1) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act and the rules, the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) and of any other law for the time
being in force shall apply to the suits and
proceedings [other than the proceedings
under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a
Family Court and for the purposes of the
said provisions of the Code, a Family
Court shall be deemed to be a civil court
and shall have all the powers of such court.

(2) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act and the rules, the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall
apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX
of that Code before a Family Court.
9 All. Abhishek Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1159

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family
Court from laying down its own procedure
with a view to arrive at a settlement in
respect of the subject-matter of the suit or
proceedings or at the truth of the facts
alleged by the one party and denied by the
other.

18. Execution of decrees and
orders.-

(1). A decree or an order, other
than an order under Chapter IX of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), passed by a Family Court shall have
the same force and effect as a decree or
order of a civil court and shall be executed
in the same manner as is prescribed by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
for the execution of decrees and orders.

(2) An order passed by a Family
Court under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall
be executed in the manner prescribed for
the execution of such order by that Code.

(3) A decree or order may be
executed either by the Family Court which
passed it or by the other Family Court or
ordinary civil court to which it is sent for
execution."

15. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions,
only Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure shall be applicable to the case
filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the
application filed under Section 128 Cr.P.C.
The Court has to see only the provisions
enshrined in Chapter-IX of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
and
in
the
provisions/sections contained in ChapterIX Cr.P.C., it has nowhere mentioned that
proceedings under Sections 125 and 128
Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated against a minor
but can be initiated through his guardian.

16. Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that
if any person having sufficient means
neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife,
unable to maintain herself, or (b) his
legitimate or illegitimate minor child,
whether married or not, unable to maintain
itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate
child (not being a married daughter) who
has attained majority, where such child is,
by reason of any physical or mental
abnormality or injury unable to maintain
itself, or his father or mother, unable to
maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of
the first class may, upon proof of such
neglect or refusal, order such person to
make
a
monthly
allowance
for
the
maintenance of his wife or such child,
father or mother, at such monthly rate, as
such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the
same to such person as the Magistrate may
from time to time direct.

17. On the basis of the aforesaid
provisions, this Court is inclined to refused
the submission of the learned counsel for
the revisionist qua the minority of the
revisionist at the time of filing of instant
application,
as
there
is
no
bar
in
entertainment of application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and Section 128 Cr.P.C. filed
against a minor.

18. Now this Court comes to the
submission of the learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 that the issue regarding
the minority of the revisionist at the time of
filing of instant application has not been
raised before the trial court and also the
high school examination mark-sheet-cumcertificate has not been testified before the
trial court and the same has only been
raised and produced before this Court for
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the first time, therefore, the same cannot be
examined by this Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction.

19. Since the issue raised by the
learned counsel for the revisionist that
since at the time of filing of instant
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the
revisionist was minor, therefore, the same
could not be maintainable relates to
question of substantial law, therefore, this
Court may consider the same as this Court
sits in a revisional jurisdiction.

20. So far as the submission made by
the learned counsel for the revisionist that
since the opposite party no.2 has refused to
live with her husband with sufficient cause,
she is not entitled to get any maintenance
allowance, is concerned, this Court may
record that the trial court while deciding
issue no.2 has recorded categorical finding
that the opposite party n o.2 has sufficient
cause to live separately from the revisionist
as since marriage, the opposite party no.2
was subjected to harassment and cruelty for
demand of additional dowry. It has also
been recorded that the revisionist has
himself admitted in his cross-examination
that in the marriage he has taken dowry. It
has
also
been
recorded
that
after
compromise
the
opposite
party
no.2
returned to her matrimonial house but after
some time, she was again subjected to
harassment and cruelty for demand of
additional dowry.

21. This Court cannot embark upon a
re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by
the learned counsel for the revisionist. The
evidence led before the trial court has been
dealt with by the trial court while passing
the impugned judgment. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that this Court cannot
substitute its own finding while exercising
its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
Even otherwise, if the opposite party no.2
has refused to live with her husband i.e.
revisionist during the course of trial, it
cannot be presumed that she did not want
to live with her husband since the date of
marriage. On account of facing harassment
and cruelty time and again on the part of
the revisionist, now she has refused to live
with her husband. As such, the opposite
party no.2 has sufficient and cogent reason
to live separately from her husband.

22. It is pertinent to notice here that
high school examination mark-sheet-cumcertificate on the basis of which the
minority of the revisionist at the time of
filing of instant application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. has been claimed, has been
produced before this Court for the first time
and the same has not been produced before
the trial court due to which the authenticity
or veracity or other wise of the same has
not
been
examined
by
summary
proceedings
i.e.
trial
proceedings.
However, looking to the fact that purely
legal question is involved in the same, the
fact that there is huge pendenecy before the
trial court and for saving the precious time
of the trial court as well as keeping in mind
the fact that if the case is remanded back to
the trial court, the opposite party nos. 2 and
3 will have forced to run from pillar to post
to get maintenance allowance, this Court
may
examine
the
said
legal
issue
considering the said certificate produced by
the revisionist before this Court treating it
to be genuine, as the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 has also not disputed
the correctness or otherwise of the same.

23. To find out the correct age of any
person, every court first considers the high
school
examination
mark-sheet
or
certificate because as per settled law, for
9 All. Abhishek Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1161
verifying the correct age, the high school
examination certificate or mark-sheet is
given
first
preference.
In
such
circumstances, this Court has to consider
the age of the revisionist mentioned in his
high school examination mark-sheet-cumcertificate in which the date of birth of the
revisionist is mentioned as "1st January,
2023", meaning thereby that on 1st
January, 2021, the revisionist has attained
the age of majority i.e. 18 years. This Court
has also room to doubt that a minor person
himself dependent upon his parents and in
any case it cannot be presumed that he has
sufficient means to maintain himself. In
any view of the matter he cannot able to
maintain his wife and daughter. However,
as and when he attains the age of majority
i.e. 18 years of age, he has to bear his
responsibly in order to maintain his legally
wedded wife and his real minor daughter.

24. It is admitted case that opposite
party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the
revisionist whereas the opposite party no.3
is his real minor daughter. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324 has opined that since it is the
sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide
financial support to the wife and minor
children, the husband is required to earn
money even by physical labour, if he is
able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his
obligation.

25. It is no doubt true that at the time
of filing of instant application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 10th February,
2019 the revisionist was minor but at the
time of passing of the impugned judgment
i.e. 22nd November, 2023 he attained the
age of majority i.e. approximately 20 years
old. In such circumstances, this Court is of
the considered view that before the date of
attaining the age of majority i.e. when he
was minor, it was not obligatory upon him
to maintain his legally wedded wife and
real minor daughter, but just after attaining
the age of majority, he will be become
liable not only to maintain himself but it is
legally obligatory upon him to maintain his
wife and minor daughter.

26. So far as the exact income of the
revisionist is concerned, there is nothing on
record to ascertain the exact income of the
revisionist from the date he attained the age
of
majority
i.e.
1st
January,
2021.
However, it is cropped up from the
testimonies of the witnesses that there is 55
bighas of agricultural land, one XYLO car
and one tractor in the joint family of the
revisionist.
However,
unless
the
revisionist's share is received, his exact
income cannot be known.

27. However, considering the fact that
the revisionist who has not claimed that he
is not physically deformed, is able bodied
person, this Court may record that in that
circumstance, if it is considered that he is a
labourer, then he would at least earn Rs.
600/- per day, meaning thereby that his
total monthly income would be Rs.18,000/-
per month.

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and
Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari
reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, has
observed that the maintenance allowances
can be granted up to the extent of 25% of
the net income of the husband. The
maintenance amount awarded must be
reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of
the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded
to the wife should neither be so extravagant
which becomes oppressive and unbearable
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the respondent, nor should it be so
meagre that it drives the wife to penury.

29. Keeping in view of the income of
revisionist as well as guidelines issued by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v.
Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr)
(Supras), this court is of the considered
opinion
that
the
total
amount
of
maintenance allowance awarded by the trial
court i.e. Rs. 5,000/-+Rs.4,000/- per month
(total
Rs.9,000/- per
month)
is not
commensurate as per the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
cases. 25% of the total monthly amount i.e.
Rs. 18,000 as quantified by this Court
herein-above
would
be
Rs.4,500/-.
Therefore, the same is reduced to Rs.
2,500/- per month to opposite party no.2
(wife) and Rs. 2,000/- per month to
opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) and
the same shall be payable from the date
when the revisionist attained the age of
majority i.e. 1st January, 2021.

30. Consequently, judgment and order
dated 22nd November, 2023 passed by the
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
No.1, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.
1546 of 2019 (Smt. Sheela Devi & Another
Vs. Abhishek Yadav) under Section 125
Cr.P.C.,
Police
Station-Visharatganj,
District-Bareilly, is modified to the extent
that now the revisionist shall pay Rs.
2,500/- per month to opposite party no.2
(wife) and Rs. 2,000/- per month to
opposite party no.3 (minor daughter)
towards maintenance allowance from 1st
January, 2021.

31. It is also clarified that the arrears
of amount towards maintenance allowance
as awarded by the court below shall be
calculated on the basis of amount of
maintenance allowance as fixed by this
Court herein above and after that if it is
found that any amount has been paid in
excess, the same shall be adjusted from the
amount to be paid.

32. The present criminal revision is,
accordingly, partly allowed.

33. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1162
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2024

Charanjeet Kaur @ Manpreet Kumar
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Shobha Vati, Shyam Narayan Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Upendra Kumar Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C.,
had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, based on the alleged last
cause of action arising in a district.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 127 - Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 2, 2(a), 29f), 2(s), 3, 12, 19, 27,
27(a), 27(b), 27(c) - Criminal Revision -
challenging the judgment and order passed by
the Additions Sessions Judge - under section 12
of the DV Act, - whether district courts had
jurisdiction under Section 12 of the DV Act, in a
case where revisionist alleged harassment,