# Shailesh Kumar Yadav Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 661
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4542 of 2024
- **Bench:** Madan Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shailesh-kumar-yadav-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54773
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

G.A., Yogeshwar Rai

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ballia committed any illegality,
perversity, or material irregularity in awarding
maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- per month to the
legally wedded wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C., and whether
the quantum of maintenance so determined was
excessive or disproportionate to the income and
legal obligations of the revisionist so as to
warrant interference by High Court in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 125
- The present criminal revision was filed
by the revisionist assailing the order dated
01.08.2024
passed
by
the
learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia,
whereby the revisionist was directed to
pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.
18,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.
2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with effect from the date
of filing of the application
- It is
undisputed that Opposite Party No. 2 is
the legally wedded wife of revisionist,
their marriage having been solemnized on
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21.12.2021 according to Hindu rites and
rituals - The revisionist challenged the
impugned order primarily on the ground
that he had contracted a second marriage
with the consent of Opposite Party No. 2
and was also maintaining children from
the second wedlock, contending that the
maintenance
amount
awarded
was
excessive
and
beyond
his
financial
capacity - On the other hand, Opposite
Party No. 2 asserted that the revisionist,
being a Sub-Inspector in the U.P. Police,
had sufficient income, as reflected from
the income certificate and affidavit on
record,
and
that
the
quantum
of
maintenance awarded was reasonable
considering the cost of living and settled
legal principles governing maintenance
u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
Held: The revisionist/husband is an able-bodied
person and, therefore, cannot shirk his legal
obligation to maintain his wife and child - The
maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month awarded
by the Trial Court cannot be said to be
excessive, in fact, it is on the lower side -
Hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court does not warrant interference by Court - A
perusal of the record further shows that the
Trial Court decided the s. 125 Cr.P.C. application
without framing any points for determination,
which is mandatory as per s. 354(6) Cr.P.C -
This provision requires that every order u/s 117
or sub-section (2) of s. 138, and every final
order made u/s 125, s. 145, or s. 147, shall
contain the point or points for determination,
the decision thereon, and the reasons for the
decision - It is clarified that in the absence of
framing any points for determination, it is
difficult to ascertain the basis on which the Trial
Court passed the order or awarded the
maintenance amount - Thus, criminal revision
dismissed. [Paras 6 to 8] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan
Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury nee
Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383; Kulbhushan
Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 -
referred to

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Criminal revision; Principal Judge; Family
Court; s. 125 Cr.P.C.; Maintenance; Legally
wedded wife; Solemnized marriage; Hindu
rites and rituals; Quantum of maintenance;
Income certificate; Affidavit; Able-bodied
person; Legal obligation to maintain; Cost of
living; Trial court; Interference; Revisional
jurisdiction; s. 354(6) Cr.P.C.; Reasons for
decision; Perusal of record; Dismissal of
revision.

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision
No. - 4542 of 2024

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2024
passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 1044 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist:
Gauri Shankar Yadav, Imran Syed, Santosh
Yadav

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Yogeshwar Rai

## Text

11 All. Shailesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
661
of
accused
on
the
material
collected during course of investigation
cannot be ruled out.

47. In the present case, this Court
finds that the allegations against the
appellant are grave and serious. The
material collected during investigation
prima facie indicates his involvement in the
conspiracy and in facilitating shelter and
support to the assailants. The brutal killing
of three persons, including two security
guards, in broad daylight with firearms and
explosives has shaken public confidence
and created terror in society.

48.
Given
the
exceptionally
gruesome manner in which the crime
was committed, the public terror it
caused, the involvement of multiple
accused in a criminal conspiracy, and the
severity of the charges, this Court finds
no sufficient grounds to release the
accused on bail. Granting bail in a case
of such magnitude and societal impact
could
send
a
wrong
signal
and
undermine the administration of justice.
The court must consider the impact that
the release of the accused may have on
the public and the witnesses. The
possibility of the accused, a relative of a
key conspirator, influencing witnesses
cannot be ruled out.

49. Accordingly, in light of the
facts, circumstances, and the serious nature
of the crime, the exceptional gravity and
societal impact of the crime, and the strong
prima
facie
material
indicating
the
appellants involvement in the criminal
conspiracy
and
the
recovery
of
incriminating materials and in line with the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this Court finds no merit in
the present criminal appeal.
The Criminal appeal lacks merit
and is hereby rejected.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 661
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4542 of 2024

Shailesh Kumar Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Gauri Shankar Yadav, Imran Syed, Santosh
Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Yogeshwar Rai

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ballia committed any illegality,
perversity, or material irregularity in awarding
maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- per month to the
legally wedded wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C., and whether
the quantum of maintenance so determined was
excessive or disproportionate to the income and
legal obligations of the revisionist so as to
warrant interference by High Court in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 125
- The present criminal revision was filed
by the revisionist assailing the order dated
01.08.2024
passed
by
the
learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia,
whereby the revisionist was directed to
pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.
18,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.
2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with effect from the date
of filing of the application
- It is
undisputed that Opposite Party No. 2 is
the legally wedded wife of revisionist,
their marriage having been solemnized on
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21.12.2021 according to Hindu rites and
rituals - The revisionist challenged the
impugned order primarily on the ground
that he had contracted a second marriage
with the consent of Opposite Party No. 2
and was also maintaining children from
the second wedlock, contending that the
maintenance
amount
awarded
was
excessive
and
beyond
his
financial
capacity - On the other hand, Opposite
Party No. 2 asserted that the revisionist,
being a Sub-Inspector in the U.P. Police,
had sufficient income, as reflected from
the income certificate and affidavit on
record,
and
that
the
quantum
of
maintenance awarded was reasonable
considering the cost of living and settled
legal principles governing maintenance
u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
Held: The revisionist/husband is an able-bodied
person and, therefore, cannot shirk his legal
obligation to maintain his wife and child - The
maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month awarded
by the Trial Court cannot be said to be
excessive, in fact, it is on the lower side -
Hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court does not warrant interference by Court - A
perusal of the record further shows that the
Trial Court decided the s. 125 Cr.P.C. application
without framing any points for determination,
which is mandatory as per s. 354(6) Cr.P.C -
This provision requires that every order u/s 117
or sub-section (2) of s. 138, and every final
order made u/s 125, s. 145, or s. 147, shall
contain the point or points for determination,
the decision thereon, and the reasons for the
decision - It is clarified that in the absence of
framing any points for determination, it is
difficult to ascertain the basis on which the Trial
Court passed the order or awarded the
maintenance amount - Thus, criminal revision
dismissed. [Paras 6 to 8] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan
Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury nee
Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383; Kulbhushan
Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 -
referred to

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Criminal revision; Principal Judge; Family
Court; s. 125 Cr.P.C.; Maintenance; Legally
wedded wife; Solemnized marriage; Hindu
rites and rituals; Quantum of maintenance;
Income certificate; Affidavit; Able-bodied
person; Legal obligation to maintain; Cost of
living; Trial court; Interference; Revisional
jurisdiction; s. 354(6) Cr.P.C.; Reasons for
decision; Perusal of record; Dismissal of
revision.

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision
No. - 4542 of 2024

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2024
passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 1044 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist:
Gauri Shankar Yadav, Imran Syed, Santosh
Yadav

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Yogeshwar Rai

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

1.Heard Sri Gauri Shankar Yadav,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Yogeshwar
Rai,
learned
counsel
for
Opposite Party No.2, learned A.G.A. for
the State, and perused the record.

2.This criminal revision has been
filed by the revisionist seeking to set
aside the order dated 01-08-2024 passed
by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ballia in Criminal Misc. Case No.
1044 of 2021 (Smt. Meena Devi vs.
Shailesh Kumar Yadav) under Section
125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist was
directed
to
pay
maintenance
of
Rs.18,000/- per month to Opposite Party
No.2 with effect from the date of filing
of the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C.
11 All. Shailesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663

3.The sole argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the revisionist is that
the revisionist has performed a second
marriage with the consent of Opposite
Party No.2 and also bears the liability of
three children born out of the second
wedlock. Hence, it is contended that the
amount of maintenance awarded by the
Court below is excessive, exorbitant, and
not commensurate with the income of the
revisionist.

4.On the other hand, learned counsel
for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the
revisionist is a Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police
and has himself admitted in his affidavit
that his income is Rs.65,000/- per month,
whereas his actual salary is much higher as
disclosed in the affidavit. Learned counsel
for Opposite Party No.2 vehemently
opposed the submissions made on behalf of
the revisionist and submitted that, keeping
in view the present scenario and the cost of
living, the amount of Rs.18,000/- per
month awarded by the Trial Court cannot
be
considered
excessive.
Hence,
the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court
does not call for interference by this Court.

5.Considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, and upon
hearing the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties as well as the
learned A.G.A., it stands admitted that
Opposite Party No. 2 is the legally wedded
wife of the revisionist, and their marriage
was
duly
solemnized
on 21.12.2021
according to Hindu rites and rituals. With
regard to the income of the revisionist, the
income certificate placed before the learned
Trial Court reflected his income as Rs.
65,000/- per month at the time of
adjudication of the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., though his present
income is approximately Rs. 1,20,000/- per
month. In view of the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh
v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, Kalyan Dey
Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury nee
Nandy,
AIR
2017
SC
2383,
and
Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3
SCC 129, it is well settled that maintenance
may be granted up to 25% of the husband?s
net income, and calculated on the basis of
Rs. 65,000/- as considered by the Trial
Court, 25% comes to Rs. 16,250/- per
month, which substantially aligns with the
maintenance awarded by the learned Trial
Court.

6.The revisionist/husband is an ablebodied person and, therefore, cannot shirk
his legal obligation to maintain his wife and
child. The maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per
month awarded by the Trial Court cannot
be said to be excessive; in fact, it is on the
lower side. Hence, the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court does not warrant
interference by this Court.

7.Before imparting the judgment, this
Court has observed that several judgments
passed by the learned Trial Court have been
decided without framing any points for
determination. A perusal of the record
further shows that the Trial Court decided
the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application without
framing any points for determination,
which is mandatory as per Section 354(6)
Cr.P.C. This provision requires that every
order under Section 117 or sub-section (2)
of Section 138, and every final order made
under Section 125, Section 145, or Section
147, shall contain the point or points for
determination, the decision thereon, and the
reasons for the decision. It is clarified that
in the absence of framing any points for
determination, it is difficult to ascertain the
basis on which the Trial Court passed the
order or awarded the maintenance amount.
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8.Accordingly, the present criminal
revision is dismissed.

9.Let a copy of this order be circulated
to all the District Judges through the
Registrar
(Compliance)
and
to
all
Principal Judges, Family Courts, for
communication and necessary compliance.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 664
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1999 of 2012

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Shabbir Ahmed & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Amaresh Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Lalit Kumar, Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Employee's
Compensation
Commissioner
was
legally
justified in holding that the deceased was an
"employee" within the meaning of Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923, notwithstanding the
close familial relationship between the deceased
and owner of vehicle, and consequently whether
the insurer could be fastened with liability to
indemnify the compensation awarded, along
with the correct determination of the insurer's
obligation to pay statutory interest on the
compensation from the date it became due.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - 279, 304-A, 427 -
Employee's Compensation Act,1923 - s. 30
- The claim petition was filed by the
parents
of
the
deceased
under
the
Employee's
Compensation
Act,
1923,
asserting that their son was employed as
a conductor on vehicle No. UP-14-U-9433
owned by his elder brother and was
drawing a monthly salary of ₹4,500/-, and
that he died in a road accident on
16.05.2010 during the course of his
employment
-
The
Employee's
Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad,
upon
appreciation
of
oral
and
documentary
evidence,
including
the
admission of employment made by the
vehicle owner in his written statement
and testimony, held that an employer -
employee relationship stood established,
awarded compensation of ₹4,25,084/- to
the claimants, and directed the insurer to
indemnify the same with conditional
interest - Aggrieved thereby, the insurer
preferred an appeal u/s 30 of above Act
disputing
the
existence
of
the
employment relationship and its liability,
while the claimants filed a cross-objection
seeking interest from the date of the
accident, leading to adjudication by High
Court.

Held: The impugned judgment records that the
insurance company was again given opportunity
to cross-examine the owner, but the owner
failed to appear before the Commissioner - The
non appearance of owner cannot render his
testimony inadmissible, since the proceedings
under the Employee's Compensation Act,1923
are summary proceedings in which strict rules of
pleading and evidence are not applicable - In
view of evidence on record, it was proved that
the deceased was employed as conductor on
vehicle No.UP-14-U-9433 on the date of
accident, who was paid a monthly salary of
Rs.4,500/-, as such, the contention contrary to
it, of learned counsel for the appellant, is
rejected - The Commissioner has not erred in
concluding that there was relationship of
employer-employee between the owner of
vehicle and deceased - No substantial question
of law arises in appeal, thus accordingly, appeal
dismissed and also cross - objection of claimant
allowed. [Paras 15, 16, 17] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & others
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2007) 13
SCC 446; United Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jai