Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:202724
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3825 of 2024
Jitendra Shukla
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Vashishtha Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sanjay Kumar Dubey
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 24th June, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case No. 39 of 2019 (Smt. Pooja & 2 Others Vs. Jitendra Shukla), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by opposite party nos.2 to 4 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) i.e. total Rs. 14,500/- in total towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application. Since opposite party no.4 is living with the revisionist, the trial court has not awarded any maintenance allowance in his favour.
3. Brief facts of the present case is that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 22nd November, 2009 and from the aforesaid wedlock, opposite party no.3 Astha and opposite party no.4 Mayank were born. After some time, the relationship between the husband and wife i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Resultantly, the opposite party no. 2 filed the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Hathras along with opposite party nos. 3 and 4, which has been allowed by the trial court ex parte vide judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2019, whereby the trial court awarded Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4,000/- in favour of opposite party no.3. Since the opposite party no.2 has not demanded maintenance allowance for opposite party no.4 who is living with his father i.e. revisionist, the trial court has not awarded any maintenance allowance in his favour. Against the ex-parte judgment, the revisionist filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for recall of the ex-parte judgment dated 23rd January, 2019. During the pendency of the application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed an application for enhancement of the aforesaid maintenance allowance and the trial court vide order dated 19th June, 2023 enhanced the maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.3 from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month. The revisionist challenged order dated 19th June, 2023 before the High Court by means of Criminal Revision No. 4211 of 2023 (Jitendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Others) and the opposite party no.2 has also filed Criminal Revision No. 1375 of 2024 (Smt. Pooja Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Others) challenging the same order dated 19th June, 2023. The criminal revision no. 4211 of 2023 was disposed of vide order dated 3rd June, 2024 whereas criminal revision no. 1375 of 2024 was disposed of vide order dated 13th June, 2024. During the pendency of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has filed Petition No. 2 of 2019 under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein decree of divorce has been passed by the trial court vide ex parte judgment and order dated 6th August, 2020, awarding Rs. 1,50,000- in favour of opposite party no.2 as permanent alimony and Rs. 50,000/- each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 as permanent maintenance allowance. The amount of said award as permanent alimony and permanent maintenance allowance has also been received by opposite party no. 2.Against the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020, the opposite party no.2 filed recall application under Order-IX, Rule-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has also been rejected by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid ex-parte judgment and decree of divorce, opposite party no.2, filed First Appeal No. 1283 of 2023 (Smt. Pooja Shukla Vs. Jitendra Shukla), which is pending consideration before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Principal Judge without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without applying his judicial mind has passed the impugned judgment Rs. 4,500/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) only towards maintenance allowance from the date of institution of the application, which is per se illegal.
5. Lastly, it is submitted by the revisionist that the revisionist has preferred Petition No. 2 of 2019 under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein decree of divorce has been awarded by the trial court vide ex parte judgment and order dated 6th August, 2020, awarding Rs. 1,50,000- in favour of opposite party no.2 as permanent alimony and Rs. 50,000/- each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 as permanent maintenance allowance. The amount of said award as permanent alimony and permanent maintenance allowance has also been received by opposite party no. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist referring to the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Jatinder Kumar Sapra Vs. Anupama Sapra dated 17th February, 2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2024 has stressed that when the revisionist has given permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, opposite party no.2 (wife) is not entitled to any maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment dated 24th June, 2024.
7. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since neither the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020 has been set aside/quashed nor has been stayed by any competent court of law, therefore, the same has become final between the parties at this stage. For expiry of necessary period i.e. the period of filing of first appeal, the revisionist married another lady and from the said wedlock a child was born.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that the revisionist is ready and willing to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) towards monthly maintenance allowance regularly in compliance of the impugned judgment dated 24th June, 2024.
9. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the revisionist states that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court dated 24th June, 2024 insofar as it awards Rs. 4,500/- in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
11. Apart from the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 states that it is the revisionist, who had filed the divorce suit in which judgment had been passed by the family court against which first appeal has been preferred by opposite party no.2 before this Hon?ble High Court which is pending consideration. It is also submitted that though opposite party no.2 has taken permanent alimony as awarded by the trial court vide ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020 but she had never demanded any permanent alimony. It is, thus, submitted that since the first appeal filed by the opposite party no.2 against the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020 is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court, the impugned judgment awarding maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 is sustainable in the eyes of law. He, therefore, submits that the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
12. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the decree/judgment of divorce passed by the Family Court has not been stayed by the First Appellate Court i.e. the Hon?ble High Court wherein the first appeal filed by opposite party no.2 against the decree of divorce, the same becomes final as on date and as per the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Jatinder Kumar Sapra (Supra), the impugned judgment and order of maintenance does not prevail over the decree of divorce.
13. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the present criminal revision including the impugned judgment.
14. The only one issue is up for consideration before this Court is whether the opposite party no.2 (wife) is entitled to get any maintenance allowance from her husband i.e. revisionist after ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020 and also after taking permanent alimony of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded therein.
15. This Court may record that admittedly ex parte decree of divorce/judgment and order dated 6th August, 2020 has been passed by the Family Court, Hathras in Marriage Petition No. 2 of 2019 under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Principal Judge wherein the permanent alimony has been granted in favour of opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which has also been taken by her, is subjected to challenge in the first appeal filed by opposite party no.2 which is pending consideration before this Court.
16. It is admitted fact between the parties that ex parte decree of divorce/ judgment and order dated 6th August, 2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court has been passed on divorce petition filed by the revisionist, wherein permanent alimony has been awarded to opposite party no.2 (wife) to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the same has also been received by opposite party no.2 without any protest. Even though the opposite party no.2 has filed recall application against the ex parte decree of divorce/judgment and order dated 6th August, 2020, which has been rejected by the trial court and therefore, opposite party no.2 has filed first appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the said ex parte decree of divorce which is pending consideration and there is no interim order has been passed in favour of opposite party no.2, meaning thereby the ex parte decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020 has become final between the parties as on date.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jatinder Kumar Sapra (Supra) has held that the permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) granted to the respondent- applicant constitutes the full and final settlement of all claims, including any maintenance obligations.
18. Under such circumstance and also in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jatinder Kumar Sapra (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that unless or until any interim relief is not granted to the opposite party no.2 in the first appeal or any favourable order is not passed in her favour, as per the ex parte decree of divorce and the fact that she has received the permanent alimony awarded therein, she is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance.
19. Consequently, judgment and order dated 24th June, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case No. 39 of 2019 (Smt. Pooja & 2 Others Vs. Jitendra Shukla), under Section 125 Cr.P.C, insofar as it awards Rs. 4,500/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) is set aside, where the the said impugned judgment and order insofar as it awards Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date filing of application is affirmed. It is further provided that the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 23rd January, 2019 till the date of passing of ex parte decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020. Accordingly, the revisionist is directed to pay the total amount of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- to opposite party no.2 from 23rd January, 2019 to 6th August, 2020 within three months from today. Besides the above, the revisionist shall comply with impugned judgment and order dated 24th June, 2024 awarding Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 in letter and spirit and without any fault.
20. The present criminal revision is partly allowed but subject to the observations made herein above.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.) November 14, 2025 Sushil/-