Vandana Devi v. Sandeep Kumar), under Section

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 at Arya Samaj Mandir on 20.10.2019 according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals. The parents of the revisionist have spent Rs.7,00,000/- in the said marriage but soon after the marriage the opposite party no.2 along with his other family members have started demand a Swift Dezire Car and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash. On 23.02.2020, the father of the revisionist came to the matrimonial house of the revisionist and persuaded the in-laws but after some time, the opposite party no.2 and his other family members committed marpeet and tortured her for demand of additional dowry and on 14.04.2020, the opposite party no.2 ousted the revisionist from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the local police intervened in the matter, again revisionist went to her susral on 02.08.2020 but she was badly beaten by the opposite party no.2 and his other family members and again ousted her from the matrimonial house and since then the revisionist is living with her parents.

4. Thereafter, on 05.02.2021 the revisionist moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, claiming maintenance from the opposite party no.2.

5. The opposite party no.2 appeared before the trial court hand has filed his written statement on 04.01.2022.

6. The trial court vide order dated 12.03.2024 allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the revisionist and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.9,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist from the date of the order.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court has error in law while granting the maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to the revisionist, which is meagre and directing the opposite party to pay maintenance from the date of order but it should be from the date of application in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on the basis of false and fabricated averments as the opposite party no.2 and his family members have never demanded any sort of additional dowry from the revisionist as alleged by her. He further submits that the revisionist is living separately from her husband. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 admits that the opposite party no.2 is a government employee i.e. constable in U.P. Police. In the last, he submits that the judgment and order passed by the trial court being ex-parte deserves to be set aside and quashed.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

10. It appears from the record that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals. The opposite party no.2 is a government employee, working in the U.P. Police as constable. The opposite party no.2 is getting salary of Rs.42055/- per month and after deduction he is receiving Rs.38, 259/-. There is nothing on record to show that the revisionist is in employment, earns money and is able to maintain herself.

11. Since it is proved that on account of cruelty and harassment made by the opposite party no.2, the revisionist is living separately from the opposite party no.2 and she has no means of earning to maintain herself, therefore, as per the principal laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra) the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband. In the present case, the opposite party no.2 is receiving an amount of 38,259/- from deductions, therefore, in view of the above guidelines, the revisionist is entitled to get maintenance of Rs.9,565/- per month, which is almost similar to the amount granted by the trial court i.e. Rs.9,000/- per month, hence at this point, the judgment and order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court.

12. So far as the direction of the trial court that the revisionist is entitled to get maintenance from the dare of order is concerned, in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra) the Apex Court has clearly observed that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of application, therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court dated 12.03.2024 deserves to be modified in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case.

13. Accordingly, judgment and order of the trial court dated

12.03.2024 is modified to the extent that the opposite party no.2 is directed to pay Rs.9,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist from the date of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 05.02.2021.

14. So far as the arrears of the maintenance amount is concerned, the opposite party no.2 is directed to pay the arrears of the maintenance amount in twelve equal installments. The first installment would fall in the month of October, 2025 and the rest 11 installments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month.

15. It is made clear that in case, the opposite party no.2 has already paid any amount towards maintenance to the revisionist that shall be adjusted in the total amount of arrears.

16. With the above observations/directions, the instant revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh, J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 at Arya Samaj Mandir on 20.10.2019 according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals. The parents of the revisionist have spent Rs.7,00,000/- in the said marriage but soon after the marriage the opposite party no.2 along with his other family members have started demand a Swift Dezire Car and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash. On 23.02.2020, the father of the revisionist came to the matrimonial house of the revisionist and persuaded the in-laws but after some time, the opposite party no.2 and his other family members committed marpeet and tortured her for demand of additional dowry and on 14.04.2020, the opposite party no.2 ousted the revisionist from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the local police intervened in the matter, again revisionist went to her susral on 02.08.2020 but she was badly beaten by the opposite party no.2 and his other family members and again ousted her from the matrimonial house and since then the revisionist is living with her parents.

4. Thereafter, on 05.02.2021 the revisionist moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, claiming maintenance from the opposite party no.2.

5. The opposite party no.2 appeared before the trial court hand has filed his written statement on 04.01.2022.

6. The trial court vide order dated 12.03.2024 allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the revisionist and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.9,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist from the date of the order.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court has error in law while granting the maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to the revisionist, which is meagre and directing the opposite party to pay maintenance from the date of order but it should be from the date of application in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on the basis of false and fabricated averments as the opposite party no.2 and his family members have never demanded any sort of additional dowry from the revisionist as alleged by her. He further submits that the revisionist is living separately from her husband. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 admits that the opposite party no.2 is a government employee i.e. constable in U.P. Police. In the last, he submits that the judgment and order passed by the trial court being ex-parte deserves to be set aside and quashed.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

10. It appears from the record that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals. The opposite party no.2 is a government employee, working in the U.P. Police as constable. The opposite party no.2 is getting salary of Rs.42055/- per month and after deduction he is receiving Rs.38, 259/-. There is nothing on record to show that the revisionist is in employment, earns money and is able to maintain herself.

11. Since it is proved that on account of cruelty and harassment made by the opposite party no.2, the revisionist is living separately from the opposite party no.2 and she has no means of earning to maintain herself, therefore, as per the principal laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra) the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband. In the present case, the opposite party no.2 is receiving an amount of 38,259/- from deductions, therefore, in view of the above guidelines, the revisionist is entitled to get maintenance of Rs.9,565/- per month, which is almost similar to the amount granted by the trial court i.e. Rs.9,000/- per month, hence at this point, the judgment and order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court.

12. So far as the direction of the trial court that the revisionist is entitled to get maintenance from the dare of order is concerned, in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra) the Apex Court has clearly observed that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of application, therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court dated 12.03.2024 deserves to be modified in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case.

13. Accordingly, judgment and order of the trial court dated

12.03.2024 is modified to the extent that the opposite party no.2 is directed to pay Rs.9,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist from the date of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 05.02.2021.

14. So far as the arrears of the maintenance amount is concerned, the opposite party no.2 is directed to pay the arrears of the maintenance amount in twelve equal installments. The first installment would fall in the month of October, 2025 and the rest 11 installments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month.

15. It is made clear that in case, the opposite party no.2 has already paid any amount towards maintenance to the revisionist that shall be adjusted in the total amount of arrears.

16. With the above observations/directions, the instant revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh, J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad