Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ritu Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on : 04.05.2026 Delivered on : 21.05.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2440 of 2025 Smt. Ritu Singh ..Revisionist(s) Versus State of U.P. and another ..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Akanksha Gaur, Rajneesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Syed Irfan Ali Court No. - 88 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Akansha Gaur, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Aligarh, in Suit No. 958/2020 (Smt. Ritu Singh Vs. Prashant Singh) u/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Gandhipark, District- Aligarh, by which the learned trial court has partly allowed the maintenance application vide order dated 19.03.2025.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant filed Application 4A under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that she married the opposite party, Prashant Singh, on 03.12.2017 according to Hindu rites in Aligarh, and her father spent around Rs.28,00,000/- on the marriage, including cash and household items. After the marriage, she alleged that her husband Prashant, mother-in-law Vimlesh, and other family members became dissatisfied with the dowry and, under the influence of Narendra alias Narad, repeatedly demanded a Fortuner car and additional dowry, harassed and assaulted her, and treated her cruelly. She alleged that on 16.05.2019, Prashant and Vimlesh assaulted her and attempted to strangle her, after which she called the police, who intervened upon assurances from the opposite party. Later, the opposite party allegedly left her at her maternal relatives house on the pretext of returning within a week but avoided taking her back despite repeated requests. When she returned with her father to her matrimonial home on 11.07.2019, she found the house locked, and Prashant allegedly abused her over the phone and refused to accept her without a Fortuner car as dowry. Believing she had been deliberately abandoned, she broke open the lock and entered the house, after which Prashant and his mother returned with the police and filed a complaint against her. The applicant submitted a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, alleging that her husband Prashant and his family had subjected her to assault, harassment, and unlawful demands for additional dowry. Acting on the complaint, the SSP directed Police Station- Gandhipark, Aligarh, to register a case against the in-laws, following which FIR No. 326/2019 was lodged under Sections 498A, 352, 323, and 307 of the IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the opposite party, Prashant and others.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist married the opposite party on 03.12.2017 with adequate dowry. However, the opposite party and his family were dissatisfied with the dowry and demanded Fortuner car as additional dowry. On non-fulfillment of the dowry demand, the revisionist was harassed and physically and mentally assaulted by the opposite party and his family. On 16.05.2019, an attempt to strangulate her was made by the opposite party and her mother-in-law Vimlesh, after which she called the police, who intervened upon assurances from the opposite party. The revisionist had also submitted a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, alleging that her husband/opposite party, Prashant and his family had subjected her to assault, harassment, and unlawful demands for additional dowry. Acting on the complaint, the SSP directed Police Station- Gandhipark, Aligarh, to register a case against the in-laws, following which FIR No. 326/2019 was lodged under Sections 498A, 352, 323, and 307 of the IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the opposite party, Prashant and others.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the trial court has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and material evidence on record and without considering the provisions of law, without rightly examining the legal aspect of Section 125 Cr.P.C. in ignorance of the fact and has granted meagre amount to the revisionist while in ignorance of directions given in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and totally overlooked the interim maintenance amount that had been granted by the order dated 24.01.2024.
6. Perusal of the prayer section of the revision clearly shows that the revisionist seeks setting aside of order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Case No. 958/2020 (Smt. Ritu Singh Vs. Prashant Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has further prayed that opposite party be directed to pay maintenance in accordance with the interim maintenance order dated 24.01.2024 during the pendency of the present revision. The prayer clause itself shows that the final judgment has been passed in maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and copy of the impugned order shows that a sum of Rs.5000/- has been granted by way of maintenance to the revisionist from 09.09.2020. Now, by way of this revision, on one hand the revisionist seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 by which the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/revisionist has attained finality and on the other hand, seeks direction of this court that opposite party be directed to comply with the interim maintenance order dated 24.01.2024 and pay according to the maintenance in terms of that order during the course of revision. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that interim order merges with the final order. By way of this revision, it seems that the applicant/revisionist seeks modification of the interim maintenance order that had been passed in favor of the applicant/revisionist in Case No. 958/2020 (Smt. Ritu Singh Vs. Prashant Singh) and she can seek modification of the same by moving an application before the trial court as per the prayer portion of the revision petition.
7. It is a well-established principle of law that when a party seeks enhancement of maintenance in revision, the High Court's hands are tied by the statutory limits of revisional jurisdiction. It is confined to examining legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness. The court may quash, remit, or set aside an order if it is perverse or illegal, but it does not substitute its own factual determination. Revisional power is not appellate power. The High Court cannot directly increase or decrease the maintenance amount in revision. A revisional court cannot ordinarily increase or reduce the quantum of maintenance. Its jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate. It is settled law that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, confined to legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness. It does not extend to re-determination of the quantum of maintenance, which is a matter for appeal or alteration proceedings. The revision court's role is corrective, not substitutive. It cannot enhance or reduce the maintenance quantum, as the same would require re-recording of evidence in regard to changed circumstances, and its powers are confined to ensuring legality, propriety, and jurisdictional correctness. Substantive modification must be pursued through appeal or alteration proceedings. The revisional court does not re-determine the quantum of maintenance or re-weigh evidence.The relief that may be granted by a revisional court is usually in the form of -
(i) Setting aside the order,
(ii) Correcting procedural aspects, or
(iii) Remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
The determination of quantum of maintenance is a substantive adjudication based on evidence. Even if the trial court awarded a meager amount, the High Court in revision cannot enhance it. Interference is confined to cases where the order is illegal, perverse, or jurisdictionally flawed. The revisional court can set aside and quash the order only where the following conditions exist-
1) The Magistrate or trial court acted without jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.
2) The order is contrary to law, violates statutory provisions, or ignores mandatory procedure.
3) There is a serious procedural irregularity affecting fairness (e.g., denial of hearing, ignoring vital documents, refusal to consider admissible evidence).
4) The findings are perverse, i.e., based on no evidence or conclusions no reasonable judicial mind could reach.
(e.g. Awarding maintenance despite clear proof of independent income of the claimant, without discussing that evidence.)
5) The trial court has ignored material evidence or misapplied settled principles. (e.g. Ignoring salary slips or proof of income while fixing maintenance.)
6) The order results in grave injustice or hardship, even if technically within jurisdiction. (Fixing maintenance at a token amount that defeats the statutory purpose.)
8. Perusal of impugned order does not reflect any procedural, jurisdictional or material defect from which it can be inferred that the trial court has acted perversely. Therefore, the proper remedy for enhancement lies before the court which passed the order in the form of an Alteration petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, if circumstances have changed (e.g., increase in income, inflation, new needs of dependents).
9. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh (supra) in paragraph 128, while addressing the issue of overlapping jurisdiction and the need to avoid conflicting orders in different proceedings, directed in para 128.3:-
"(iii) that if the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any modification or variation, it would have to be done in the same proceeding in which the order was passed."
10. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed circumstances afresh. Its role is supervisory correcting illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error. Enhancement necessarily requires proof of changed circumstances (increase in income, inflation, new needs, etc.). This involves adducing and evaluating fresh evidence, inviting objections from the non-applicant, and forming a factual opinion.
11. Revisional courts lack the power to conduct this evidentiary exercise. They cannot substitute their own factual findings for those of the trial court. The proper remedy would be to make a proper alteration petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, where evidence can be led and tested. Therefore, the revisionist is directed to approach the learned court concerned under Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS for the enhancement of the maintenance amount and the same shall decided by the learned court concerned in accordance with the law after hearing both the parties.
12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Aligarh, in Suit No. 958/2020 (Smt. Ritu Singh Vs. Prashant Singh) u/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Gandhipark, District- Aligarh, needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. The revisionist is at liberty to seek enhancement of maintenance by way of alteration proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C./Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, which shall decide the same in accordance with law after hearing both parties.
(Achal Sachdev,J.) May 21, 2026 KS