Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2023 · High Court · 2025

(Smt. Priyanka Rani vs Vipin Kumar and 5 others) under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr.

3. The Criminal Revision no. 6731 of 2024 has been preferred by the revisionist for quashing of the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no. 03, Bulandshahr, passed in Maintenance case no. 463 of 2020 (Smt. Priyanka Rani vs Vipin) Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Bulandshahr, whereby the trial court has awarded Rs. 12000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application i.e. 09.07.2020.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist-Vipin Kumar, and the marriage of the revisionist-Vipin Kumar was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 09.03.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After the marriage opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty for demand of additional dowry and on 18.05.2018, due to non-fulfillment of the alleged demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 was beaten by them and also thrown out her from matrimonial house.

5. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint in this regard before Chief Judicial Magistrate against the revisionists, later on the matter was settled between both the parties and the opposite party no. 2 again started living with the revisionists but on 19.05.2020, she was again subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and without any cogent reason the opposite party no.2 herself left her matrimonial house.

6. Thereafter, on 09.07.2020, the opposite party had filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the revisionists claiming maintenance, which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 463 of 2020 (Smt. Priyanka Rani Vs. Vipin) in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on 08.09.2020, opposite party no.2 had filed an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the trial court, which was registered as Case No. 396 of 2021, (Smt. Priyanka Rani Vs. Vipin Kumar and 5 others), which was allowed by trial court vide order dated 20.05.2022, by which the trial court awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month, under Section 20 of D.V. Act, as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of institution of the application. The trial court further directed the revisionist-Vipin Kumar to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the opposite party no. 2 towards physical, mental and emotional harassment caused by the revisionists along with other conditions.

8. Thereafter the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been decided by the trial court vide order dated 21.01.2024, by which the revisionist-Vipin Kumar has been directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month, as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application up to the date of order. The revisionist-Vipin Kumar was also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount in four quarterly installments within 12 months.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionists confines his argument to the extent that opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and he is ready to pay maintenance to her but the maintenance awarded by the courts below is excessive and against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, in which it is observed that the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA states that the income of the revisionist was Rs.45000/- in the year 2024 and now annually it may have been enhanced. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also stated that the revisionist has agricultural property and earns Rs.60,000/- per annum, therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is in accordance with law.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. Since both the criminal revisions arise out of between the same parties, both the revisions have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

13. From the perusal of the plaint of the proceedings filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty by the revisionists for demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and on 17.05.2018 revisionists tried to kill the opposite party no. 2 by strangulating her neck. On 18.05.2018, due to non-fulfilment of the alleged demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 was beaten by them and they left her near Rajdarbar hotel after snatching her streedhan. The revisionist and his other family members have warned the opposite party no.2 that in case she does not take Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents, she would be killed and since 19.05.2020, the opposite party no.2 is living with her parents. When the revisionist has refused to pay a single penny as maintenance, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr.

14. So far as the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, is concerned, in this matter also the revisionists have demand of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party no.2 and on account of non- fulfillment of the said demand, she was subjected to physical, mental and emotional harassment, hence the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, was instituted against the revisionists.

15. The trial court vide order dated 20.05.2022 allowed the application of the opposite party no.2 filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and directed the revisionist-Vipin Kumar to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of the application and also imposed certain conditions upon the revisionist. The revisionist-Vipin Kumar was also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the opposite party no.2.

16. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.01.2024, the Maintenance Case filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also allowed and the revisionist-Vipin Kumar was directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2. The revisionist was further directed to pay arrears of the amount in four quarterly installments within 12 months.

17. The order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the trial court, reflects that the revisionist-Vipin Kumar has admitted in his reply that he is an accountant in Relaxo Company and is getting salary of Rs.45,200/- per month, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & others (supra) up to 25% of the net salary/income of the husband can be fixed for maintenance, which comes to Rs.11,300/-, which comes almost similar to amount of Rs.12,000/- which has been awarded by the trial court.

18. So far as the maintenance awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is concerned, the trial court vide order dated 22.05.2022 assessed the income of the revisionist as Rs.45000/- from his salary and Rs.60,000/- per annum from his agricultural property and thus draw the conclusion that the revisionist is earning Rs.50,000/- per month and awarded Rs.15,000/- as maintenance in favour of the opposite party no.2 but as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others (supra), the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband but the trial court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2, which is against the aforesaid guidelines of the Apex Court. In view of the guidelines framed in the aforesaid case, the trial court can award the maintenance up to 25% of the income/salary of the husband, which comes to Rs.12,500/- but the trial court in not doing so erred in law.

19. It is observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra), that though the wife can simultaneously claim maintenance under the different enactments, it would be inequitable to direct husband to pay the maintenance awarded in each of the said proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. In such cases, where the wife is receiving maintenance in different proceedings the smaller amount shall be adjusted into the higher amount of maintenance. The court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount.

20. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the amount of maintenance Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the trial court in the proceedings of Domestic Violence Act, which is not in proportionate to the income of the opposite party no. 2 and in view of the the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case, it is liable to be reduced. Therefore, the amount of maintenance Rs.15,000/- per month is reduced to the extent of Rs. 12,500/- per month from the date of the application and the remaining conditions imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Further, the maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be adjusted in the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 is entitled to receive total maintenance of Rs.12,500/- only in both the cases from her husband-Vipin Kumar.

21. With the above observations/directions, the judgment and orders of the trial court dated 20.05.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 396 of 2021 (Smt. Priyanka Rani Vs. Vipin Kumar and five others), order dated 31.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2023 (Vipin Kumar and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 22.01.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 463 of 2020 (Smt. Priyanka Rani Vs. Vipin), are modified to the extent indicated above.

22. For the purposes of grant of maintenance to the revisionist, both the cases shall be treated as one case. The smaller amount of maintenance in either of the cases shall be adjusted in the higher amount and in the same manner the smaller amount of arrears, if any, is adjusted in the higher amount.

23. Accordingly, the revisionist-Vipin Kumar is directed to pay Rs.12,500/- per month, only, as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 in both the cases (in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005). Other conditions imposed by the trial court in the proceedings of D.V. Act, shall remain intact. The revisionist-Vipin Kumar is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount in one case in 12 equal installments. The first installment would fall in the month of October, 2025. Thereafter, he shall pay other 11 installments on fifteenth of each calendar month. The amount of arrears already paid shall be adjusted in the amount of arrears, which is due to be paid to the opposite party no.2 in the light of the observations made above.

24. Both the revisions are disposed of, accordingly. Order Date :- 18.08.2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh, J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

(Smt. Priyanka Rani vs Vipin Kumar and 5 others) under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr.

3. The Criminal Revision no. 6731 of 2024 has been preferred by the revisionist for quashing of the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no. 03, Bulandshahr, passed in Maintenance case no. 463 of 2020 (Smt. Priyanka Rani vs Vipin) Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Bulandshahr, whereby the trial court has awarded Rs. 12000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application i.e. 09.07.2020.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist-Vipin Kumar, and the marriage of the revisionist-Vipin Kumar was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 09.03.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After the marriage opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty for demand of additional dowry and on 18.05.2018, due to non-fulfillment of the alleged demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 was beaten by them and also thrown out her from matrimonial house.

5. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint in this regard before Chief Judicial Magistrate against the revisionists, later on the matter was settled between both the parties and the opposite party no. 2 again started living with the revisionists but on 19.05.2020, she was again subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and without any cogent reason the opposite party no.2 herself left her matrimonial house.

6. Thereafter, on 09.07.2020, the opposite party had filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the revisionists claiming maintenance, which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 463 of 2020 (Smt. Priyanka Rani Vs. Vipin) in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on 08.09.2020, opposite party no.2 had filed an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the trial court, which was registered as Case No. 396 of 2021, (Smt. Priyanka Rani Vs. Vipin Kumar and 5 others), which was allowed by trial court vide order dated 20.05.2022, by which the trial court awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month, under Section 20 of D.V. Act, as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of institution of the application. The trial court further directed the revisionist-Vipin Kumar to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the opposite party no. 2 towards physical, mental and emotional harassment caused by the revisionists along with other conditions.

8. Thereafter the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been decided by the trial court vide order dated 21.01.2024, by which the revisionist-Vipin Kumar has been directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month, as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application up to the date of order. The revisionist-Vipin Kumar was also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount in four quarterly installments within 12 months.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionists confines his argument to the extent that opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and he is ready to pay maintenance to her but the maintenance awarded by the courts below is excessive and against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, in which it is observed that the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA states that the income of the revisionist was Rs.45000/- in the year 2024 and now annually it may have been enhanced. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also stated that the revisionist has agricultural property and earns Rs.60,000/- per annum, therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is in accordance with law.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. Since both the criminal revisions arise out of between the same parties, both the revisions have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

13. From the perusal of the plaint of the proceedings filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty by the revisionists for demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and on 17.05.2018 revisionists tried to kill the opposite party no. 2 by strangulating her neck. On 18.05.2018, due to non-fulfilment of the alleged demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 was beaten by them and they left her near Rajdarbar hotel after snatching her streedhan. The revisionist and his other family members have warned the opposite party no.2 that in case she does not take Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents, she would be killed and since 19.05.2020, the opposite party no.2 is living with her parents. When the revisionist has refused to pay a single penny as maintenance, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr.

14. So far as the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, is concerned, in this matter also the revisionists have demand of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party no.2 and on account of non- fulfillment of the said demand, she was subjected to physical, mental and emotional harassment, hence the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, was instituted against the revisionists.

15. The trial court vide order dated 20.05.2022 allowed the application of the opposite party no.2 filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and directed the revisionist-Vipin Kumar to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of the application and also imposed certain conditions upon the revisionist. The revisionist-Vipin Kumar was also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the opposite party no.2.

16. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.01.2024, the Maintenance Case filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also allowed and the revisionist-Vipin Kumar was directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2. The revisionist was further directed to pay arrears of the amount in four quarterly installments within 12 months.

17. The order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the trial court, reflects that the revisionist-Vipin Kumar has admitted in his reply that he is an accountant in Relaxo Company and is getting salary of Rs.45,200/- per month, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & others (supra) up to 25% of the net salary/income of the husband can be fixed for maintenance, which comes to Rs.11,300/-, which comes almost similar to amount of Rs.12,000/- which has been awarded by the trial court.

18. So far as the maintenance awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is concerned, the trial court vide order dated 22.05.2022 assessed the income of the revisionist as Rs.45000/- from his salary and Rs.60,000/- per annum from his agricultural property and thus draw the conclusion that the revisionist is earning Rs.50,000/- per month and awarded Rs.15,000/- as maintenance in favour of the opposite party no.2 but as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others (supra), the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband but the trial court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2, which is against the aforesaid guidelines of the Apex Court. In view of the guidelines framed in the aforesaid case, the trial court can award the maintenance up to 25% of the income/salary of the husband, which comes to Rs.12,500/- but the trial court in not doing so erred in law.

19. It is observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra), that though the wife can simultaneously claim maintenance under the different enactments, it would be inequitable to direct husband to pay the maintenance awarded in each of the said proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. In such cases, where the wife is receiving maintenance in different proceedings the smaller amount shall be adjusted into the higher amount of maintenance. The court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount.

20. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the amount of maintenance Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the trial court in the proceedings of Domestic Violence Act, which is not in proportionate to the income of the opposite party no. 2 and in view of the the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case, it is liable to be reduced. Therefore, the amount of maintenance Rs.15,000/- per month is reduced to the extent of Rs. 12,500/- per month from the date of the application and the remaining conditions imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Further, the maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be adjusted in the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 is entitled to receive total maintenance of Rs.12,500/- only in both the cases from her husband-Vipin Kumar.

21. With the above observations/directions, the judgment and orders of the trial court dated 20.05.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 396 of 2021 (Smt. Priyanka Rani Vs. Vipin Kumar and five others), order dated 31.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2023 (Vipin Kumar and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 22.01.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 463 of 2020 (Smt. Priyanka Rani Vs. Vipin), are modified to the extent indicated above.

22. For the purposes of grant of maintenance to the revisionist, both the cases shall be treated as one case. The smaller amount of maintenance in either of the cases shall be adjusted in the higher amount and in the same manner the smaller amount of arrears, if any, is adjusted in the higher amount.

23. Accordingly, the revisionist-Vipin Kumar is directed to pay Rs.12,500/- per month, only, as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 in both the cases (in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005). Other conditions imposed by the trial court in the proceedings of D.V. Act, shall remain intact. The revisionist-Vipin Kumar is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount in one case in 12 equal installments. The first installment would fall in the month of October, 2025. Thereafter, he shall pay other 11 installments on fifteenth of each calendar month. The amount of arrears already paid shall be adjusted in the amount of arrears, which is due to be paid to the opposite party no.2 in the light of the observations made above.

24. Both the revisions are disposed of, accordingly. Order Date :- 18.08.2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh, J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad