# Pratima Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 587
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2921 of 2018
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pratima-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48048
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
397/401,
125-
enhancement of maintenance-husband is
unemployed-Hence, maintenance cannot
be
enhanced-trial
court
rightly
appreciated the ground of maintenance
and evidence.(Para 1 to 13)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Pratima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
587
P.C. In this connection, it may be
immediately added that where in an
application, a complaint states facts which
constitute cognizable offence but makes a
defective prayer, such an application will
not cease to be a complaint nor can the
Magistrate refuse to treat it as a complaint
even though there be no prayer seeking
trial of the known or unknown accused. The
Magistrate has to deal with such facts as
constitute cognizable offence and for all
practical
purposes
even
such
an
application would be a complaint."

7. Moreover, this court in the case
of Yogendra Singh v. State of UP, 2005 (51)
ACC 890 : (2005 All LJ 1518) (Alld), has
held that application filed under Section
156(3) Cr. P.C. can be treated as complaint
under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and no separate
complaint is required to be filed.

8. In the case of Joseph Mathuri
@
Vishveswaranand
v.
Swami
Sachchidanand Harishakshi, 2001 (Suppl)
ACC 957 (SC), the application was moved
by the complainant under section 156(3) Cr.
P.C. before the Magistrate for directing the
police to register the case against the
appellant. In that matter Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that there was nothing wrong if the
application was directed to be treated as
complaint."

12. In view of what has been discussed
above, the impugned order passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court
No.7/Judicial Magistrate, Agra, whereby he
has treated the application filed under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint,
cannot be said to be illegal. No material
irregularity has been committed by the
learned trial Court while passing the
impugned order either. Therefore, the
present revision lacks merit an

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
the present revision is dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A587
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2921 of 2018
connected with
Criminal Revision No. 2922 of 2018

Pratima Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri Anand Pati
Tiwari, Sri Chandra Shekhar Rai, Sri Ravi
Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
397/401,
125-
enhancement of maintenance-husband is
unemployed-Hence, maintenance cannot
be
enhanced-trial
court
rightly
appreciated the ground of maintenance
and evidence.(Para 1 to 13)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324

2. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam
Kishore Murmu & anr.,Civil Appeal No. 6902 of
2021
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Bina Devi Vs St. of U.P. (2010) SCC Online All
236

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. Criminal Revision No. 2921 of
2018 has been preferred against the order
dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in
Miscellaneous Case No. 220 of 2014
(Pratima Singh Vs. Pankaj Singh @ Dablu
Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Police
Station Kachhawan, District Mirzapur,
whereby the learned court has rejected the
prayer
of
revisionist
for
grant
of
maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month from
opposite party no. 2 and has granted
monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/- per
month from the date of order.

3. Criminal Revision No. 2922 of 2018
has been preferred against the order dated
18.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Mirzapur
in
Miscellaneous Case No. 220 of 2014 (Pratima
Singh Vs. Pankaj Singh @ Dablu Singh),
under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station
Kachhawan, District Mirzapur, whereby, the
learned trial court has allowed the maintenance
of Rs.2000/- per month to the opposite party
no. 2 from the date of order.

4. As both the revisions have been
preferred
against
the
order
dated
18.04.2016, so both the revisions are
decided by a common judgment.

5. The main grounds for the Criminal
Revision No. 2921 of 2018 is that
impugned order is illegal arbitrary and
against the evidence on record. Revisionist
has no source of income and she is unable
to maintain herself and is totally dependent
on her parental family. Opposite Party No.
2 was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
doing a private job in Delhi. On the basis of
surmises and conjectures, trial court has
fixed the income of opposite party no. 2 as
Rs.6000/- per month. Opposite party no.2 is
a graduate and was working in a private
job. Notional income of Rs.6000/- per
month has been fixed without any basis. No
distinction has been drawn in respect of
skilled and unskilled labour. Revisionist
has always been and presently desirous to
live with opposite party no. 2 as his wife
and it is opposite party no. 2 who is not
willing to keep and maintain the revisionist
legally wedded wife. Maintenance amount
is too less. Maintenance amount should be
enhanced.

6. The main ground for Criminal
Revision No. 2922 of 2018 is that
impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and
against the weight of evidence on record.
Revisionist has no source of income and
was unable to maintain himself and is
totally dependent on his parental family.
Learned court below has clearly ignored
the fact that opposite party no. 2 was
earning Rs.5000/- per month by doing
private job as sewing, embroidering and
beauty parlour. In her statement admitted
by opposite party no. 2 that revisionist is
already graduate and unemployed and also
stated she had no knowledge regarding
income of the revisionist and also stated
that she has not filed any case for
maintenance, same was not considered by
the court below. Income of the revisionist
of Rs.6000/- per month fixed is illegally.

7. From the perusal of impugned
order, it is admitted fact that Pratima Singh
is legally wedded wife of Pankaj Singh.
1 All. Pratima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
589

8. The main point argued before this
Court is that amount of maintenance of
Rs.2000/- per month is very meagre
whereas, the other side submitted that it is
beyond the capacity of the husband as he is
unemployed and not an earning hand. On
the basis of evidence on record, trial court
had adjudicated that husband of the
revisionist Pratima Singh is not doing any
service but he has agriculture farming, he is
a young man and on the basis of daily wage
Rs. 200/- per day is Rs.6000/- assessed the
monthly income of the husband and
keeping in mind the economical and social
status of the parties Rs.2,000/- per month
awarded as maintenance by the husband to
the wife. The averment alleged by Pankaj
Singh that revisionist is working in sewing,
embroidering and beauty parlour and
earning Rs.5000/- per month. Her father
has 10 bigha kheti and is a Postman earning
Rs.7000/- per month but such fact was not
alleged even in examination-in-chief of
Pankaj Singh. So, this fact is not proved
and court has come to conclusion that wife
is unable to maintain herself. Wife is living
at the house of his father i.e. her parental
home from 24.03.2010, she is a graduate
lady and not doing any service and no
source of income, unable to maintain
herself. Revisionist Pratima Singh is ready
to reside with her husband but husband is
not ready to reside with her because she has
lodged an FIR under Section 498A IPC
against him and his father and in the said
case,
they
were
detained
in
jail.
Revisionist's husband is the only son of his
father. It is also submitted by the husband
that his mother is suffering from cancer and
she was under treatment. The husband has
said in his statement that wife had filed a
case against him and his father for which
he was detained in jail, so he refused to
reside with her. Service of Pankaj Singh in
Delhi through private job is also not
proved.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist
also submitted the order of Ministry of
Labour and Employment dated 30.09.2016,
19.09.2013, in which, daily wages of the
skilled and unskilled persons has been
classified. This is a revision, revisional
Court has very limited powers only to
adjudge the illegality and impropriety of
the impugned order and has no power to reappreciate the evidence. Learned trial court
has
rightly
adjudicated
amount
of
maintenance as Rs.2000/- per month. So it
is not proper to enhance the amount of
maintenance from Rs.2000/- to Rs.8000/-
per month as the husband is unemployed
and has limited earning. So far as the
submission
of
the
husband
that
maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per
month is very excessive and liable to be set
aside is also not tenable because keeping in
mind the present inflation hike price of the
goods, it is very difficult to manage even
fooding of the revisionist. Thus, the
maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per
month is not liable to be minimized or
enhanced.

10. The next submission before this
Court is that maintenance has been passed
to be provided from the date of the order
i.e. 18.04.2016. The trial court has
emphasized
that
this
petition
for
maintenance
has
been
rejected
on
16.07.2014 against which revision has been
filed before this Court. Notice issued to
opposite party no.2, opposite party no.2 had
submitted his objection promptly. In fact
application for maintenance has been filed
initially as Misc. Case No. 91 of 2010
before Munsif Mirzapur on 12.08.2010.
Application was dismissed ex-parte on
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16.07.2014, in revision, the impugned order
was set aside. This shows that the journey
of the maintenance application started from
12.08.2010 and up till now no amount of
maintenance
has
been
paid
to
the
revisionist, which is very disgraceful.

11. Learned counsel appearing for
Pratima Singh submitted that in ex-parte
order dated 05.04.2011, Rs.2500/- awarded
as maintenance per month, although this
order has been set aside, later on, being exparte will not help Pratima Singh.

12. Learned counsel appearing for
revisionists has relied upon the following
judgments of the Supreme Court which are
as under :

i.)
Rajnesh
vs.
Neha
and
Another (2021) 2 SCC 324

ii.) Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan
Ali & Anr. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu
& Anr. Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 2021 SC
decided on 16th November, 2021, in which,
claim was awarded from the date of
petition in a motor accident claim. The
facts of the said case is not similar to this
case.

iii.) In Bina Devi Vs. State of
UP 2010 SCC OnLine All 236. The court
had held that maintenance is to be paid
from the date of application, the court
must record reasons. If the order is silent,
it will be effective from the date of order,
for which reasons need not be recorded.
The Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C
is prima facie clear that maintenance shall
be payable from the date of the order.
Thus, this Court is of the view that
maintenance should be paid from the date
of the order not from the date of
application.

13. On the basis of above discussion,
this revisional court is of the opinion that
evaluation of finding of the trial court is not
suffering from any illegality manifest error.
Trial court has not overlooked the grounds
of maintenance and evidence, as such, no
interference is called for in the impugned
order by this revisional court. Both the
revisions are devoid of merit and is liable
to be dismissed.

14. Both Criminal Revision No. 2921
of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 2922 of
2018 are dismissed and impugned order
dated 18.04.2016 is confirmed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A590
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3150 of 2021

Firoz ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Mukesh Joshi

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
397/401
&
Negotiable Instrument Act,1881-Section
138-applellate court dismissed the appeal
and has also cancelled the bail granted to
the
appellant-accused
during
the
pendency of appeal-accused granted bail
subject to condition that he will deposit
50% of the amount-After getting released
he moved an application for modification
of order which was rejected-appellate
court dismissed the appeal simply on the