# Neeru Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2001
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-06
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeru-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54450
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

4 All. Neeru Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2001
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2001
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4150 of 2024 & other connected cases

Neeru ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether the ex parte order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was liable to be set aside
under Section 126 Cr.P.C. on the plea that the husband had not been effectively served?
(ii) Whether grant of maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was
impermissible where maintenance had already been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
(iii) Whether enhancement of maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act was justified having
regard to the husband's income, the growing needs of the minor son and the prevailing cost of living?
(iv) Whether the recovery warrants issued for enforcement of the maintenance order under Section 125
Cr.P.C. called for interference?

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 125 and 126 - Maintenance - Ex parte order -
Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings - Knowledge of proceedings admitted by
husband - Failure to contest proceedings on legal advice - Effect.

HELD: The husband admitted in his application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. that he had knowledge of the
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and had consciously chosen not to contest the claim on the advice of
his counsel. A Government employee, having knowledge of pending proceedings, cannot subsequently seek
recall of an ex parte maintenance order merely by pleading ineffective service. The Family Court rightly
dismissed the application under Section 126 Cr.P.C., as the husband failed to establish any sufficient cause for
his absence. [Paras 8 and 9]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 125 and 126 - Maintenance - Suppression of income by
husband - Assessment of maintenance.

HELD: The husband neither contested the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. nor disclosed his actual
income despite being employed in the State Roadways Department. Even before the High Court he failed to
disclose his total income from all sources. The Court held that the conduct of the husband clearly indicated an
attempt to avoid disclosure of his true financial capacity and thereby evade his statutory obligation to maintain
his wife and minor son. [Paras 8 and 9]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Maintenance - Maintenance already
awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Subsequent award under Domestic Violence Act -
Maintainability.
2002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD: Merely because maintenance had already been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the claim under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 did not become non-maintainable. The Magistrate
while deciding the application under the Domestic Violence Act had specifically taken into consideration the
maintenance already awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted only an additional amount. Therefore,
there was no duplication of maintenance and the challenge to the award under the Domestic Violence Act was
devoid of merit. [Paras 10 and 11]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Appeal - Enhancement of
maintenance - Salary and other sources of income of husband - Growing educational needs of
minor child - Rising cost of living.

HELD: The appellate court rightly enhanced the additional maintenance payable under the Domestic Violence
Act from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month after considering the documentary evidence regarding the
husband's salary as well as his other sources of income. The collective maintenance of Rs.16,000/- per month
payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act was held to be just, fair and reasonable
having regard to the educational needs of the thirteen-year-old son and the prevailing cost of living. [Paras 11
and 12]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 125 - Recovery proceedings - Recovery warrants -
Validity.

HELD: Since the ex parte maintenance order dated 16.12.2020 and the order rejecting the husband's
application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. were found to be valid, no interference was warranted with the recovery
warrants issued for execution of the maintenance order. [Paras 9 and 13]

Maintenance - Wife and minor son - Quantum - Adequacy.

HELD: The maintenance awarded collectively under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 adequately balanced the financial capacity of the husband with the needs of the
wife and minor son and did not warrant either enhancement or reduction. [Para 12]

All the petitions dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Constitution of
India.

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Ex parte maintenance; Domestic Violence Act; Additional maintenance; Enhancement of
maintenance; Recovery warrants; Suppression of income; Maintenance to wife and child; Cost of living;
Educational expenses.

Case Arising From
Judgment dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2023,
Smt. Neeru v. State of U.P. and Others, enhancing the maintenance awarded under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 596 of 2018,
Smt. Neeru and Another v. Sunil Kumar, rejecting the husband's application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. for
setting aside the ex parte maintenance order dated 16.12.2020.
4 All. Neeru Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2003
Order dated 14.03.2023 passed in the aforesaid proceedings issuing recovery warrants for enforcement of
the maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay and Sri Vineet Kumar Dubey.
For the Respondents: Sri Anjani Kumar Shahwal and learned G.A..

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Matrimonial dispute between the rival parties has led to filing the above separate petitions
against each other, wherein issue of maintenance by wife and son of Sunil Kumar has been
adjudicated through impugned order dated 13.5.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2023,
titled Smt. Neeru Vs. State of U.P. and others, by Sessions Judge, Mainpuri thereby enhancing the
maintenance awarded to claimants under D.V. Act vide order dated 2.8.2023 by Additional Civil
Judge (S.D.), Court No.2, Mainpuri. The claimants have prayed for further enhancement of the
maintenance, whereas husband-Sunil Kumar has also challenged the order dated 13.5.2024 by
invoking Article 227 Constitution of India.

2. Besides, Sunil Kumar-husband has also challenged the order dated 10.5.2022 ad 14.3.2023
passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 596 of 2018, titled Smt. Neeru and
another Vs. Sunil Kumar, whereby his application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the
ex parte proceedings/ order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and
subsequently, the recovery warrants were issued against him for execution of order dated
16.12.2020.

3. Mr. Sailendu Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the
marriage between Neeru and Sunil Kumar was solemnized on 11.12.2009, and from this wedlock
one son was born, who had attained the age of 4 years when the couple separated on 16.2.2017, and
after separation, dependent wife alongwith son is residing with her parents. Learned counsel
submits that husband-Sunil Kumar is employed with State Roadways Department and is drawing a
monthly salary of Rs.45000/-, besides he also owns agricultural land and immovable property.
According to learned counsel, the husband has an extra monthly rental income, but he did not
discharge his obligations to maintain his wife and son, therefore, an application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. was filed by the claimants on 21.12.2018, and it was decided in favour of the claimants
vide ex-parte order dated 16.12.2020, thereby awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.3,000/- respectively. Learned counsel submits that as the amount was not being paid, therefore,
the wife was compelled to initiate recovery proceedings against her husband-Sunil Kumar, wherein
recovery warrants were issued against him vide impugned order dated 14.3.2023 and the said order
is under challenge in petition bearing Application U/S 482 No.13274 of 2023 filed by husbandSunil Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants has further argued that as the destitute wife and son were
not getting any maintenance from the opposite party no.2-Sunil Kumar, therefore, another claim of
maintenance was preferred under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as 'D.V. Act') and vide order dated 2.8.2023 passed by Additional Civil
Judge (S.D)., Court No.2, Mainpuri an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month was awarded, which has
2004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been enhanced to Rs.8,000/- per month by the appellate court through the impugned order dated
13.5.2024. Learned counsel submits that the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of wife and
son is on lower side, particularly, in the light of the monthly income of husband-Sunil Kumar, who
apart from of his salary is having other source of income as well, therefore, he prays for
enhancement.

5. Mr. Ram Sajeevan Prajapati, learned counsel for the husband has argued that the first claim by wife
was moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein the husband being employed with the State Roadways
Department was not served effectively and the ex-parte order dated 16.12.2020 was passed against him, and
the wife never filed any petition to seek enhancement of the said maintenance. Learned counsel has pointed
out that being aggrieved against the ex-parte adjudication of the claim by wife, an application dated
15.3.2023 was filed by him under Section 126 Cr.P.C, which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.5.2022
and against this a petition bearing Criminal Revision Defective No. 638 of 2022 is pending before this Court.
Learned counsel submits that the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the absence of the
contest by the husband calls for interference by this Court, therefore, the recovery warrants issued vide order
dated 14.3.2023 would also call for interference. He prays that the order dated 10.5.2022 dismissing the
application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. be set aside and the husband be allowed to contest the case. Learned
counsel also prays for setting aside the recovery warrants issued against him on 14.3.2023

6. Learned counsel for the husband has further argued that the amount of maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per
month, if, is to the satisfaction of the wife and son, the award of maintenance under D.V. Act vide order
dated 2.8.2023 is not justified. Similarly, according to learned counsel, the enhancement order by appellate
court passed on 13.5.2025 is also not sustainable.

7. However, during the course of hearing, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the husband that in
none of the cases, any written response was ever filed by the husband and even in his revision petition
challenging the order of enhancement dated 13.5.2024 he has not chosen to reveal his monthly income from
all sources. Lastly, it is stated by learned counsel that if, the original order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the
Family Court granting monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the wife and son is maintained, his grievance
would be redressed.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds
that the couple resided together for a period of eight years after their marriage in the year 2009 and the wife
and son were dependent on Sunil Kumar. A perusal of the application dated 21.12.2018 would show that the
wife initially made an attempt for reunion, but all efforts went in vain, therefore, she was compelled to claim
maintenance from her husband and the claim was not contested by Sunil Kumar. Though, it is claimed by
husband-Sunil Kumar that he was not served, but in application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. he admitted the
knowledge of the pending proceedings, who chose not to contest by following the advice of his advocate,
who informed Sunil Kumar that as and when his presence is required, he would be intimated. Thus, it is clear
that believing the legal advice, he continued with his job and when he came to learn that proceedings have
been decided against him, he swung in action. It does not appeal to prudence that a litigant who is employed
in government service would not even bother to file his reply, therefore, it becomes clear that he never
wanted to reveal his true income, perhaps to avoid his liability.
4 All. Raviprakash Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
2005

9. A perusal of the order dated 16.12.2020 would show that the trial court has carefully analyzed the
facts and circumstances of the case while awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- collectively to the
wife and son, and the application filed by husband-Sunil Kumar under Section 126 Cr.P.C. has been rightly
dismissed by delivering valid reasons vide order dated 10.5.2022. Thus, the order dated 10.5.2022 does not
call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

10. Learned counsel for the husband-opposite party no.2 had vehemently argued that once the
maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court was accepted, the similar claim under
D.V. Act could not have been allowed, much less without adjusting the amount of maintenance earlier
awarded vide order dated 16.12.2020.

11. The argument appears impressive, but is without any merit as a perusal of the order dated 2.8.2023
would show that Additional Civil Judge, Manipuri has specifically noticed the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per
month already awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of the claimants by the Family Court, and
considering that amount it only awarded additional maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. Most importantly,
the order dated 2.8.2023 was accepted by husband-Sunil Kumar, who never challenged it by way of an
appeal, and it also becomes abundantly clear that with enhancement the total maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per
month in favour of the claimants stood accepted by him.

12. Of course, the appellate court vide impugned order dated 13.5.2024 has also added an amount of
Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife and son, therefore, the collective amount comes to Rs.16,000/- per month,
but a perusal of the order dated 13.5.2024 by appellate court would show that the salary drawn by husbandSunil Kumar is clearly noticed by relying upon the documentary evidence. Further considering the other
source of income., the appellate court modified the order dated 2.8.2023 by raising the amount of
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, considering the growing age of the son,
who is presently 13 years old and is pursuing his education as well as the cost of living, which is higher in the
present days, the collective maintenance awarded to the claimants i.e. Rs.16,000/- per month under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and D.V. Act is just, fair and adequate.

13. Resultantly, no ground is made out for interfering with the impugned orders as the orders do not
suffer from any illegality, and the petitions are hereby dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2005
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 17 of 2024

Raviprakash ...Appellant
Versus
Dalip Singh & Ors. ...Respondents