# Pradeep Kushwaha Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 82
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 991 of 2015
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kushwaha-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50299
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Section 125 - Order for
maintenance
of
wives,
children
and
parents,
The
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 20(3) -
right of a minor girl for maintenance from
parents after attaining majority till her
marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
(Para - 14)

Maintenance
case
filed
by
applicant
No.1(Opposite party Nos.2 herein) - against her
husband (revisionist) - Opposite party Nos.2 and
her two minor daughters were awarded
maintenance - plea of revisionist - unable to
provide maintenance due to job loss -
Respondent No.3 not entitled to maintenance
due to majority attainment during pendency
under Section 125 Cr.P.C..- revisionist and
private respondents residing in same house -
earns livelihood by some odd jobs like driving
tempo and earns in meager amount - not
disclosed real income before court below -
several defaults in payment of maintenance
awarded by court below.(Para -2 to 12,15)

HELD:-Revisionist being able bodied , is obliged
towards to earn by legitimate means and
maintain
his
wife
and
the minor
child.
Revisionist loses job, cannot maintain wife and
children,
not
tenable.
Respondent
No.3
(daughter of revisionist) will not be denied
maintenance due to attaining majority during
pendency.
Court
considers
modifying
the
maintenance order for respondent No.2 to 4 due
5 All. Pradeep Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83
to changed circumstances and the revisionist's
loss of job.(Para -11,15)

Revision petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material coming before it during the course of
trial but without finding any change in
circumstances or any material in between, the
trial court can not re-appraise the evidence on
record for drawing a different conclusion.
Such a course of action is clearly not
permissible
by
implication
under
the
provisions of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. If such a
course of action is permitted it shall create
disorder and chaos in judicial proceedings
and certainly shall be a cause for judicial
indiscipline. It may also be noted that there
may be certain good grounds for alteration of
charge but the same may be considered at the
proper stage after recording of evidence. In
my view, the alteration of charge in this
manner is not permissible in law. This may
not be construed to mean that the trial court
cannot exercise its powers to alter the charge
for some good reason which may pop up at
any subsequent stage, on the basis of any new
material/evidence coming before it during the
course of trial.

9. On the basis of above discussion the
impugned order dated 22.11.2022 is hereby,
set aside and the revision is allowed.

The learned trial court shall proceed
with the case on the basis of earlier charge.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 82
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 991 of 2015

Pradeep Kushwaha ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Atul Kumar
Shahi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi,
(Now, Sri Kartikeya Shukla, Sri S.P.K.
Tripathi, Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Section 125 - Order for
maintenance
of
wives,
children
and
parents,
The
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 20(3) -
right of a minor girl for maintenance from
parents after attaining majority till her
marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
(Para - 14)

Maintenance
case
filed
by
applicant
No.1(Opposite party Nos.2 herein) - against her
husband (revisionist) - Opposite party Nos.2 and
her two minor daughters were awarded
maintenance - plea of revisionist - unable to
provide maintenance due to job loss -
Respondent No.3 not entitled to maintenance
due to majority attainment during pendency
under Section 125 Cr.P.C..- revisionist and
private respondents residing in same house -
earns livelihood by some odd jobs like driving
tempo and earns in meager amount - not
disclosed real income before court below -
several defaults in payment of maintenance
awarded by court below.(Para -2 to 12,15)

HELD:-Revisionist being able bodied , is obliged
towards to earn by legitimate means and
maintain
his
wife
and
the minor
child.
Revisionist loses job, cannot maintain wife and
children,
not
tenable.
Respondent
No.3
(daughter of revisionist) will not be denied
maintenance due to attaining majority during
pendency.
Court
considers
modifying
the
maintenance order for respondent No.2 to 4 due
5 All. Pradeep Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83
to changed circumstances and the revisionist's
loss of job.(Para -11,15)

Revision petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Anju Garg & anr. Vs Deepak Kumar Garg,
Criminal Appeal No.1693 of 2022 (arising out of
SLP(Crl.) No.10353 of 2018)

2. Jagdish Jugtawat Vs Manju Lata & ors. in SLP
(Criminal) No.905 of 2001

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned AGA for the State and
perused the material placed on record.

2. Instant criminal revision has been
preferred against the impugned judgement
order dated 21.1.2015, passed by Principal
Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, in Misc.
Case No.526 of 2011 (Vinita Maurya vs.
Pradeep) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police
Station
Shahpur,
District
Gorakhpur
whereby the opposite party Nos.2 Vinita
Maurya and her two minor daughters were
awarded maintenance to the tune of
Rs.7000/-
and
4000/-
per
month
respectively, which is payable on 10th of
each month from the date of order.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned
order, the revisionist, who was opposite
party in said maintenance case against
whom the maintenance was awarded filed
present criminal revision on 13.2.2015,
wherein an interim order was issued by thsi
Court that "subject to the condition that
revisionist deposits entire arrears of
maintenance as awarded by the court
below to be calculated @ Rs. 8000/- per
month which may be due till today within a
period of one month from today and
continues to deposit the current monthly
maintenance amount @ Rs. 8000/- by 10th
of each month, no coercive action shall be
taken against him during the pendency of
the said revision. The said amount shall be
paid to O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 after due
verification by the trial court. It is made
clear that in default of making payment, as
directed above, the present interim order
shall stand automatically vacated."

4. The factual matrix of the case
relevant for present criminal revision are
that the applicant No.1 (opposite party
No.1 herein) had filed a maintenance case
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of her
and her two minor daughters namely,
Vanshika and Niharika against her husband,
who is revisionist herein with averment that
her marriage with opposite party was
solemnized on 5.2.1998 according to the
Hindu rites and rituals, in which her parents
had given gifts and dowry as per their
financial status. She was sent off to her
matrimonial home after marriage and out of
her conjugation with opposite party, two
daughters were born. Her husband was
working abroad at that time and used to
come back home once in a year. In absence
of husband of the applicant, her family
members used to harass and torture her due
to non-fulfilment of demand of additional
dowry. The opposite party No.1 is an
agriculturist and earns Rs.1 lac from his job
abroad. The behaviour of opposite party
No.1 also worsened towards the applicant
during passage of time and he used to beat
and torture her and subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty for last six
years and ultimately she was driven out of
her matrimonial home in the year 2011. Her
husband is Post Graduate and did diploma
in Air Conditioning from Chandigarh.
Applicant is also Graduate. She worked as
an Agent in LIC in the year 2011 for some
time but thereafter her agency terminated
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
her. The amount earned by her in Agency
of LIC was meagre and was not sufficient
to cater her needs. The opposite party
appeared and filed written statement
wherein he stated that the applicant is
falsely levelling charges against him, which
are unfounded. The applicant misled by her
parents and she was herself coercing him
physically and mentally. In fact the
applicant No.1 and her mother intend that
parents of the opposite party leave his
home in the city and shift to village, so that
the applicant alongwith her mother rule her
matrimonial home. The opposite party
resides in his own home. In course of
hearing, the statement of applicant No.1
was recorded as AW-1 and that of opposite
party (present revisionist) as OPW-1,
wherein, applicant supported her pleadings
and she stated that her husband was
working in Portugal and his annual income
is Rs.5 lacs. In cross-examination, she has
stated that she had never studied or taught
in R.P.M., Gorakhpur. Her husband did not
sent any money to her after going abroad.
Her
father-in-law
suffered
brain
haemorrhage and presently she is residing
in her matrimonial home. A land was
purchased in Gorakhpur prior to her
marriage. The house in which she is
residing was constructed after her marriage.
She is residing in that house alongwith her
husband and parents-in-law. The expenses
of the applicant and her children is not
meeted out by income of her husband. She
is taking loans from her maternal uncle
Indradeo Prashad Kushwaha since 2012.
The OPW-1 stated in his evidence that he is
working as a labourer in Portugal. He has
filed an Encashed Certificate on 25.11.2008
as paper No.16-Kha. He had taken an
insurance policy from HDFC Bank in the
name of his father, which annual premium
is 99999. However, that policy is now
closed, as its premium was paid only for
three years. He has not contracted any
marriage in Portugal. When he was living
in Portugal, his wife changed school of his
children. Her wife is not wiling to reside
with his parents. His father has excluded
him from his property. He is now residing
with his father in his house. He also resides
at same village for some time. He is not
aware of the fee structure of his daughters.

5. Considering the evidence adduced
during hear and appreciating the evidence
in the light of pleadings of the parties, the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gorakhpur
allowed
the
maintenance
petition of the applicants for Rs.15,000/-,
which was disbursed to the tune of
Rs.7,000/-,
Rs.4,000/-
and
Rs.4,000/-
amongst the applicant No.1, 2 and 3,
respectively
as
monthly
maintenance
awardable to them by opposite party No.1,
who is present revisionist before this Court
vide impugned order dated 21.1.2015.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned
order, the revisionist has taken stand in
present revision that he was working as a
labourer in Portugal on contract basis and
when he had knowledge about the fact that
his family members were being harassed by
his wife, he came back to his home
breaking his job agreement abroad and now
he is jobless and lives in his parental home
doing agricultural working. He is not in a
position to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as
monthly maintenance to his wife and
children.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the revisionist is presently
jobless. He earns his livelihood by driving
auto and doing some odd jobs. His passport
has been surrendered by him in the Court
with regard to criminal case. Court below
vide order dated 2.11.2021, after passing of
maintenance order, issued a realization
5 All. Pradeep Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
85
warrant of Rs.553,000/- for realization of
outstanding maintenance amount and on
30.6.2022, on an application of the
applicant (18-Ka) realization warrant to the
tune of Rs.6,30,000/- was issued against the
revisionist, a copy thereof is filed with the
rejoinder affidavit. In compliance of the
inteirm order of this Court, the revisionist
has deposited entire amount of arrear at the
rate of Rs.8,000/- per month and has further
deposited Rs.8,000/- since 27.4.2015. He
had also filed a divorce petition under
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, against
which first appeal is pending before this
Court. Opposite party No.3 Niharika, the
daughter of revisionist and opposite party
No.1 had attained age of majority and now
she is 21 years. She is not eligible for
maintenance and for that reason, applicant
had filed copy of the application and copy
of execution petition filed by the applicant
No.1 Smt. Vineeta Maurya as Annexure
No.5 to the affidavit, which shows age of
Vanshika as around 21 years and of
Niharika as 15 years. Opposite party
No.2(Vinita Maurya) also works on the
post of Block Community Manager at CSC,
Kushinagar and receives a salary of
Rs.40,000/- per month. The revisionist has
filed a copy of contract employee of CSC,
Hata, Kushinagar in rejoinder affidavit, in
which name of opposite party No.2 Vinita
Maurya is mentioned as contract employee
on the post of B.C.P.M.

8.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party
Nos.2 to 4 submitted that both the
daughters of opposite party No.1 are still
dependent on her and therefore, they are in
need of maintenance from the revisionist.
The opposite party No.2 got a job on
BCPM at CSC, Hata after passing of
impugned order by court below and said
job terminated in August, 2022. The
revisionist does not drive auto but he plies
auto rickshaws. There is no infirmity,
irregularity or illegality in impugned order
passed by court below and same is liable to
be affirmed in present revision. The court
below has not accepted the plea of
disinheritance takn by the revisionist from
his father. The opposite party No.2 herself
bears tuition fee of her children.

9. Having regard the plea of revisionist
that due to loss of job in Portugal, in lieu of
want of regular employment, the revisionist
is not in a position to provide maintenance
ordered by the learned court below. The
law is well settled in recent judgement of
Apex Court dated 28.9.2022 in the case of
Anju Garg and Another vs. Deepak
Kumar Garg, Criminal Appeal No.1693
of 2022 (arising out of SLP(Crl.)
No.10353 of 2018), whereby the high
Court dismissed the revision application
filed by the appellants challenging the
order passed by District Judge, Family
Court-1, Faridabad, Haryana in a petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. observed in
paragraph No.9 and 10 of the judgment as
under:-

9) At the outset, it may be noted
that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived
to ameliorate the agony, anguish and
financial suffering of a woman who is
required to leave the matrimonial home, so
that some suitable arrangements could be
made to enable her to sustain herself and
the children, as observed by this Court in
Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. 1.
This Court in the said case, after referring
to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the
principle of law as to how the proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt
with by the Court. It held as under:
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd.
Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 :

1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court
opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)

16.
"...
Proceedings
under
Section 125 [of the Code], it must be
remembered, are of a summary nature and
are intended to enable destitute wives and
children, the latter whether they are
legitimate
or
illegitimate,
to
get
maintenance in a speedy manner."

8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala
(K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375
: 1991 SCC (Cri) 442] , while discussing
about the basic purpose under Section 125
of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378,
para 3)

3. "Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a
social purpose. The object is to prevent
vagrancy and destitution. It provides a
speedy remedy for the supply of food,
clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife."
1 (2015) 6 SCC 353

9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant
D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4
SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762] , while
adverting to the dominant purpose behind
Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC
p. 489, para 15)

15. "... While dealing with the
ambit and scope of the provision contained
in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be
borne in mind that the dominant and
primary object is to give social justice to
the woman, child and infirm parents, etc.
and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by
compelling those who can support those
who are unable to support themselves but
have a moral claim for support. The
provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy
remedy to those women, children and
destitute parents who are in distress. The
provisions in Section 125 are intended to
achieve this special purpose. The dominant
purpose behind the benevolent provisions
contained in Section 125 clearly is that the
wife, child and parents should not be left in
a helpless state of distress, destitution and
starvation."

10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai
[(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ)
547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , reiterating
the legal position the Court held : (SCC p.
320, para 6)

6. "... Section 125 CrPC is a
measure of social justice and is specially
enacted to protect women and children and
as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978)
4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls
within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution
of India. It is meant to achieve a social
purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy
and destitution. It provides a speedy
remedy for the supply of food, clothing and
shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect
to fundamental rights and natural duties of
a man to maintain his wife, children and
parents when they are unable to maintain
themselves. The aforesaid position was
highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya
v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 787] ."

11. Recently in Nagendrappa
Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 :
(2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC
(Civ) 346] , it has been stated that it is a
piece of social legislation which provides
for a summary and speedy relief by way of
maintenance to a wife who is unable to
maintain herself and her children".

10) This Court had made the
above observations as the Court felt that
5 All. Pradeep Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
87
the Family Court in the said case had
conducted the proceedings without being
alive to the objects and reasons, and the
spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of
the Code. Such an impression has also been
gathered by this Court in the case on hand.
The Family Court had disregarded the
basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct
duty of the husband to provide financial
support to the wife and to the minor
children. The husband is required to earn
money even by physical labour, if he is an
able-bodied, and could not avoid his
obligation,
except
on
the
legally
permissible grounds mentioned in the
statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, Sita Bai2, it has
been held that the object of maintenance
proceedings is not to punish a person for
his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy
and destitution of a deserted wife, by
providing her food, clothing, and shelter by
a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court,
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social
justice and is specially enacted to protect
women and children. It also falls within the
Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3),
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution
of India."

10. Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that
the Court is not impressed by the
submissions of learned counsel for the
respondent that he had no source of income
as his party business has been closed. The
respondent being able bodied, he is obliged
towards to earn by legitimate means and
maintain his wife and the minor child.

11. Having regard to the evidence of
the revisionist-wife before the Family
Court and having regard to the other
evidence on record, the Court has no
hesitation in holding that though the
respondent had sufficient source of income
and was able bodied, had failed and
neglected to main the applicants.

12. So far as the plea of revisionist
with regard to attainment of majority by
respondent No.2 Vanshika, the daughter of
revisionist
and
respondent
No.1
is
concerned, a plea was taken on behalf of
the revisionist that having attained majority
during pendency of petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C., the respondent No.3 Vanshika
is not entitled to maintenance is concerned,
the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are
liable to be reproduced as under:-

"125. Order for maintenance of
wives, children and parents.

(1) 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

(d) 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 not
exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole,
as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the
same to such person as the Magistrate may
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from time to time direct: Provided that the
Magistrate may order the father of a minor
female child referred to in clause (b) to make
such allowance, until she attains her majority,
if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband
of such minor female child, if married, is not
possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.-
For the purposes of this Chapter,-

(a) " minor" means a person who,
under the provisions of the Indian Majority
Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have
attained his majority;

(b) " wife" includes a woman who
has been divorced by, or has obtained a
divorce from, her husband and has not
remarried.

(2) Such allowance shall be payable
from the date of the order, or, if so ordered,
from the date of the application for
maintenance.

(3) If any person so ordered fails
without sufficient cause to comply with the
order, any such Magistrate may, for every
breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying
the amount due in the manner provided for
levying fines, and may sentence such person,
for the whole or any part of each month' s
allowances remaining unpaid after the
execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one month or until
payment if sooner made: Provided that no
warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any
amount due under this section unless
application be made to the Court to levy such
amount within a period of one year from the
date on which it became due: Provided further
that if such person offers to maintain his wife
on condition of her living with him, and she
refuses to live with him, such

Magistrate may consider any
grounds of refusal stated by her, and may
make
an
order
under
this
section
notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied
that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation.- If a husband has contracted
marriage with another woman or keeps a
mistress, it shall be considered to be just
ground for his wife' s refusal to live with
him.

(4) No Wife shall be entitled to
receive an allowance from her husband
under this section if she is living in
adultery, or if, without any sufficient
reason, she refuses to live with her
husband, or if they are living separately by
mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in
whose favour an order has been made
under this section is living in adultery, or
that without sufficient reason she refuses to
live with her husband, or that they are
living separately by mutual consent, the
Magistrate shall cancel the order."

13. On the basis of provision of
Section 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C. and explanation
appended thereto, above plea has been
raised on behalf of the revisionist.

14. Hon'ble Apex Court considered
this matter in Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju
Lata And Others in SLP (Criminal)
No.905 of 2001 decided on 23.4.2002. In
that case, respondent No.3, who was a
minor, unmarried girl of appellant and his
wife Manjulata, however, in course of time,
she attained majority. Respondent No.1
wife of the appellant and mother of the
respondent No.3 filed petition under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Family Court
claiming maintenance for herself and her
two children, the family court by order
dated 22.7.2000, granted maintenance at
5 All. Pradeep Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
89
the rate of Rs.500/- per month to each of
the applicants. The petitioners herein filed a
revision petition before the High Court
assailing the order of the family court on
the ground, inter alia, that the respondent
No.3 was entitled to maintenance only till
she attains age of majority and not
thereafter. Considering the point, learned
Single Judge of the High Court accepted,
the legal position that under Section 125
Cr.P.C., a minor is entitled to maintenance
from her parents only till she attains
majority, but decline to interfere with the
order passed by the Family Court- taking
the cue from Section 20(3) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, under
which the right of maintenance is given to
minor daughter till her marriage. Learned
Single Judge was persuaded to maintain the
order of the Family Court with a view to
avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings,
with observation that the Court is not
inclined to interfere in the order of Family
Court granting maintenance to respondent
No.3 on the ground that she having attained
majority would cease to have the benefit of
the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
though she would be entitled to claim
benefits provided under the statute/personal
law, as the order does not result in
miscarriage of the justice, rather interfering
with
the
order
would
create
great
inconvenience to respondent No.3 as she
would be forced to file another petition
under Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the
Act for further maintenance, etc. Hon'ble
Apex Court affirmed the finding and
observation made by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court and observed that
applying the principle to the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, it is
manifest that the right of a minor girl for
maintenance from parents after attaining
majority till her marriage is recognized in
Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception
can be taken to the judgment/order passed
by the learned Single Judge for maintaining
the order passed by the Family Court which
is based on a combined reading of Section
125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act. For the
reasons aforestated we are of the view that
on facts and in the circumstances of the
case, no interference with the impugned
judgement order of the High Court is called
for.

15.
Thus,
in
the
light
of
pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court in
aforesaid cases, this Court is of the opinion
that the plea raised on behalf of the
revisionist that having lost his job and
being devoid of any regular employment,
the revisionist may not be saddled with
liability to maintain his wife and children,
is not tenable. In the same vein, the
respondent No.3 Vanshika, the daughter of
the revisionist and respondent No.2 will not
be deprived of the maintenance awarded by
the learned Family Court only on the
ground that during pendency of proceeding,
she attained majority. However, this court
is not oblivious of the fact that when the
maintenance was awarded by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, vide order
dated
21.1.2015,
the
revisionist
was
residing in Portugal in connection with his
livelihood and thus the fact is not denied
that now he has lost his job abroad and
came back to the place of his parents. This
is also admitted position that revisionist
and private respondents are residing in the
same house, said to be built by parents of
revisionist. He has taken a plea that he
earns livelihood by some odd jobs like
driving tempo and earns in meager amount
whereas according to the submissions of
learned counsel for the private respondents
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and averments in counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the private respondents, the fee
structure of her dependent children has
been enhanced by the course of time and
they are also taking tuition by private home
tutor; it is also stated therein that it would
be incorrect to stated that there is no
earning of the revisionist and he has
become jobless. The revisionist has not
disclosed his real income before the court
below in proceeding under Section 125
Cr.P.C. He made several defaults in
payment of maintenance awarded by court
below as modified by interim order passed
by this Court.

16.
Considering
the
changed
circumstances related to the revisionist, which
has affected his earnings as he lost his job in
Portugal, this Court is of the view that the
amount ordered by learned court below
towards maintenance of the respondent No.2
to 4 is liable to be modified in the light of the
facts and circumstances of the case. Impugned
order passed by court below awarding
maintenance to private respondents against
present revisionist is modified to the extent
mentioned as under:-

(1) The
revisionist
shall pay
monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 Vinita Maurya
and her daughters Vanshika and Niharika at
the rate of Rs.2500/- per month to each of
them with effect from 1.1.2015, as and when
becomes due in the manner provided by the
court below under the impugned award.

(2) The arrears of maintenance will
be computed in accordance with the direction
No.1 as above, from 1.1.2015 and will be
payable to the respondents in 10 equal and
monthly installments, which will commence
from the period of one month from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
before the court concerned.

(3) Any amount deposited by the
revisionist
towards
the
maintenance
allowance payable to opposite party Nos.2 to
4 either in terms of award of learned Principal
Judge, Family Court or in terms of interim
order of this Court dated 25.3.2015 will be
adjusted into the amount payable by the
revisionist. The amount payable by the
revisionist will be spread over 10 monthly
installments as stated above. However, it is
made clear that in the event of failure on the
part of the revisionist to oblige any part of the
order, coercive measures be revived from that
stage and recoveries will be made in
accordance with law.

17. Accordingly, the revision petition is
disposed of in the manner and the maintenance
awarded by the court below will stand
modified to the above extent, accordingly.

18. Let a copy of this order be forwarded
to court concerned for information and
necessary actions.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 90
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1416 of 2023

Upendra & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties