Allahabad High Court
Smt Priyanka Sagar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 August, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130942 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2650 of 2025 Revisionist :- Smt Priyanka Sagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Singh,Raghuvansh Chandra,Ram Jee Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal the material on record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to allow this revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hapur in Case No. 27 of 2020 (Smt. Priyanka Sagar Vs. Mikin Brahmi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is husband of the revisionist. She was wedded to him on 18.02.2018, thereafter on 12.06.2019 she was expelled from her matrimonial house after making her harassment and since then she is living separate from the opposite party no. 2 in her maika. She gets salary not sufficient to maintain her. On the other hand, the opposite party no. 2 is working in C.H.C. on contract basis and gets Rs. 25,000/- as monthly salary and also operates a medical store in the village by which he makes earning of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Since the income of the husband/opposite party no. 2 is more than the revisionist, therefore, the amount for maintenance be fixed as per status of the husband and wife. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 29.3.2025 and her claim for maintenance was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that she is able to maintain herself and she is not willing to live with the opposite party no. 2. The finding recorded by the learned trial court is illegal and liable to be set aside and revision to be allowed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that admittedly the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are wife and husband and she is living apart from him in her maika and as per her admission before the learned trial court during the course of her examination, she stated clearly that she is posted as CHO in Lakhwati Block Rasidpur, Bulandshahar on contract basis and gets salary Rs. 20,500/- monthly with incentive Rs. 15,000/- per month that is not included in the salary. She gets Rs. 35,000/- per month and is able to maintain herself. She also stated clearly that the opposite party no. 2 if willing to take her with him, she is not ready to go. On the other hand, the opposite party no. 2 gets Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary and no any other allowance is given to him. For her maintenance Rs. 35,000/- per month, earned by her cannot be said to be less than sufficient or disproportionate to the income of the husband. In this way, there appears no any ground to make interference by this Court in the order passed by learned trial court dated 29.03.2025 as being lawful and appropriate. Hence this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Anurag Singh