Smt. Sushma Devi v. Ambika Prasad), under section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81705 Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1675 of 2024 Revisionist :- Ambika Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rachna Vyas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nanhe Lal Tripathi,Satish Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 and 3. 2. Present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, District Chandauli, in Case No.232 of 2018 (Smt. Sushma Devi Vs. Ambika Prasad), under section 127 Cr.P.C., Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli, by means of which the learned court below has enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.5,000/- to opposite party no.3-Rinku @ Rinki(minor) in place of Rs.2,500/- as earlier granted in application under section 125 Cr.P.C.. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is husband of opposite party no.2-Sushma Devi and father of opposite party no.3-Rinku @ Rinki(minor). Earlier an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by opposite party no.2, which was registered as Case No.342 of 2013 (Sushma Devi Vs. Ambika Prasad). Said application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, on 01.11.2017. In the said order dated 01.11.2017, the revisionist was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- as maintenance to opposite party no.3-Rinku @ Rinki(Minor Daughter of revisionist) and the claim of opposite party no.2- Sushma Devi(wife of revisionist) was rejected. 4. Later on, an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by opposite party no.2, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, District Chandauli, which was registered as Case No.232 of 2018, and prayed for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. Said application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was allowed vide order dated 23.01.2024 and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 20.05.2013.
Legal Reasoning
12. It is settled law that amount of maintenance should be paid from the date of application, but the said principal applies in a case where a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. is filed for seeking maintenance, but after passing of maintenance award in section 125 Cr.P.C., when the circumstances changed and a party preferred an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhanced amount of maintenance, then in such circumstances, the maintenance amount should be paid from the date on which an order is passed under section 127 Cr.P.C., it is so because presumption will be that the circumstances have changed on the date of filing of application under section 127 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it will not be appropriate that the revisionist shall be asked to pay the said enhanced amount from the date of the order, as passed in application under section 125 Cr.P.C., in Case No.342 of 2013 (Sushma Devi Vs. Ambika Prasad).
Arguments
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that by means of the order dated 23.01.2024 passed in application under section 127 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- from the date of filing of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 20.05.2013. It has been stated that the revisionist is regularly paying the maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/-, but it will be encumbering for the revisionist to pay the arrears, if the said order dated 23.01.2024 remains operational. Therefore, this revision should be allowed and the revisionist be allowed to pay the maintenance amount from the date of order passed in application under section 127 Cr.P.C. i.e. 23.01.2024, rather than from the date of application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 20.05.2013. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the enhanced maintenance amount is excessive, as he has many liabilities to bear and he is a Class-IV employee in the Railway Department. It is not possible for the revisionist to bear the burden of the enhanced amount. Hence the earlier maintenance amount as awarded by the order dated 01.11.2017, should be sustained and impugned order dated 23.01.2024 be set-aside. 6. Sri Rajeev Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent has opposed the prayer made by the revisionist and submitted that keeping in view the expenses in the education of the opposite party no.3(minor daughter), the amount of maintenance shall be enhanced up to Rs.15,000/-. The opposite party no.3/daughter is aged about 13 years and has many requirements in her daily life, therefore, the enhanced amount of maintenance cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, the prayer to reduce the maintenance amount cannot be allowed. 7. It is further submitted by learned AGA that the revisionist has not made any prayer in his grounds of revision to reduce the enhanced amount as directed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, vide its impugned order dated 23.01.2024 and has only prayed that he may be directed to pay the enhanced amount of maintenance from the date of order i.e. 23.01.2024, rather than the date of filing of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e.20.05.2013. He has further submitted that a minor daughter is liability of a father and therefore, revisionist cannot asked to reduced the enhanced amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the daughter. Daughter is minor and therefore, she too entitled for enhanced amount as maintenance for her day to day expenses. 8. Heard Ms. Rachna Vyas, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajeev Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record. 9. I have perused the impugned order dated 23.01.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, District Chandauli. In the application filed by the opposite party no.2 under section 127 Cr.P.C., it has been mentioned that she is receiving an amount of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- from the revisionist. The revisionist is an employee of Railways and is getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. 10. As far as the contention of the respondents regarding the amount of maintenance is concerned i.e. of Rs.15,000/- per month in lieu of the expenses of opposite party no.3 is not maintainable, as the revisionist is a class-IV employee and has other responsibilities as well. 11. So far as the other contention is concerned, that the amount of enhanced maintenance be granted from the date of order i.e. 23.01.2024, rather than the date of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 20.05.2013, requires consideration.
Decision
13. In view of the above, this criminal revision is allowed to the extent that the enhanced amount of maintenance should be payable from the date of order passed in Case No.232 of 2018 (Sushma Devi Vs. Ambika Prasad) i.e. on 23.01.2024. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 VKG Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad