State of U.P. and Another v. Party

125 Cr.P.C. in Maintenance Case No.997 of 2022 (Smt. Trishna Khare vs. Rahul Kumar Dhaulpuriya). It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him without any sufficient cause. The marriage between the parties was performed on 16.02.2021 and on 21.05.2021 she left her sasural and went to her maika and since then she is living there. She was never subjected to torture or harassment in relation to the demand of dowry but she herself left the company of the revisionist/husband. She lodged an F.I.R. u/s 498A I.P.C. which was challenged by him before this Court and operation of which was also stayed. Further submits that a case u/s 9 Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the revisionist which was allowed ex-parte by the learned Family Court, Gwalior in M.P. Likewise, a case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by him which was allowed ex-parte on 02.02.2024. This fact is in the knowledge of opposite party no.2 even though she has not filed any appeal 2 CRLR No. 3746 of 2025 against the orders passed by the learned trial court against her but filed this case for maintenance only for the purpose of making harassment of the revisionist. He also submits that the revisionist has no any regular source of income even though the learned trial court has fixed the amount of Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance payable month to month which is excessive, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 09.06.2025 and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist and is living apart from him since she was being subjected to torture in relation to demand of Rs.5 lakhs regarding employment which was not fulfilled that was the reason she was maltreated as a result she is living apart from him with her parents in Mathura. Further contends that the revisionist told himself to be an engineer in Railway but later on it came into the knowledge of the opposite party no.2 that he was not an engineer in Railway but was working as contractor. Further contends that cases u/s 9 & 13 of Hindu Marriage Act were filed by the revisionist in Gwalior. The fact of decree passed ex-parte against the wife u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act came into her knowledge when written statement was filed by the revisionist in the present case. Even the wife who has been divorced either by the husband or herself is included in the definition of wife as contained u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife out of Rs.20,000/- per month income of the husband as he admitted in the case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act which cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order dated 09.06.2025, it appears that the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 16.02.2021 and opposite party no.2 is living separate from him since

21.05.2021. As per allegation of wife she was maltreated by the husband and other member of his family and also she was subjected to demand of Rs.5 lakhs that could not be fulfilled that was the reason of her torture and harassment. It also appears that case u/s 9 Hindu Marriage Act has been decreed in faovur of the revisionist ex-parte likewise the case u/s 13 for divorce has also been decreed ex-parte in the Family Court, Gwalior but on the basis of ex-parte decree of divorce, it cannot be said that the opposite 3 CRLR No. 3746 of 2025 party no.2 being divorced wife has no right to claim maintenance from her husband as explanation (b) to Section 125 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that wife includes a woman who has been divorced or has obtained divorce from her husband and has not re-marriage. In this way, on the basis of decree of divorce she cannot be said to be not entitled from her right to maintenance unless she re-marrys. This shows that the opposite party no.2 is living apart from him due to his neglect. For her maintenance the revisionist has not paid any amount to her. This also shows neglect on his part. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife as amount of maintenance which cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient and also disproportionate to the income of the husband who has himself admitted in the case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act that his income is Rs.20,000/- per month. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 02.06.2025 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 11, 2025 Ashok Gupta (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

125 Cr.P.C. in Maintenance Case No.997 of 2022 (Smt. Trishna Khare vs. Rahul Kumar Dhaulpuriya). It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him without any sufficient cause. The marriage between the parties was performed on 16.02.2021 and on 21.05.2021 she left her sasural and went to her maika and since then she is living there. She was never subjected to torture or harassment in relation to the demand of dowry but she herself left the company of the revisionist/husband. She lodged an F.I.R. u/s 498A I.P.C. which was challenged by him before this Court and operation of which was also stayed. Further submits that a case u/s 9 Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the revisionist which was allowed ex-parte by the learned Family Court, Gwalior in M.P. Likewise, a case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by him which was allowed ex-parte on 02.02.2024. This fact is in the knowledge of opposite party no.2 even though she has not filed any appeal 2 CRLR No. 3746 of 2025 against the orders passed by the learned trial court against her but filed this case for maintenance only for the purpose of making harassment of the revisionist. He also submits that the revisionist has no any regular source of income even though the learned trial court has fixed the amount of Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance payable month to month which is excessive, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 09.06.2025 and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist and is living apart from him since she was being subjected to torture in relation to demand of Rs.5 lakhs regarding employment which was not fulfilled that was the reason she was maltreated as a result she is living apart from him with her parents in Mathura. Further contends that the revisionist told himself to be an engineer in Railway but later on it came into the knowledge of the opposite party no.2 that he was not an engineer in Railway but was working as contractor. Further contends that cases u/s 9 & 13 of Hindu Marriage Act were filed by the revisionist in Gwalior. The fact of decree passed ex-parte against the wife u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act came into her knowledge when written statement was filed by the revisionist in the present case. Even the wife who has been divorced either by the husband or herself is included in the definition of wife as contained u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife out of Rs.20,000/- per month income of the husband as he admitted in the case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act which cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order dated 09.06.2025, it appears that the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 16.02.2021 and opposite party no.2 is living separate from him since

21.05.2021. As per allegation of wife she was maltreated by the husband and other member of his family and also she was subjected to demand of Rs.5 lakhs that could not be fulfilled that was the reason of her torture and harassment. It also appears that case u/s 9 Hindu Marriage Act has been decreed in faovur of the revisionist ex-parte likewise the case u/s 13 for divorce has also been decreed ex-parte in the Family Court, Gwalior but on the basis of ex-parte decree of divorce, it cannot be said that the opposite 3 CRLR No. 3746 of 2025 party no.2 being divorced wife has no right to claim maintenance from her husband as explanation (b) to Section 125 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that wife includes a woman who has been divorced or has obtained divorce from her husband and has not re-marriage. In this way, on the basis of decree of divorce she cannot be said to be not entitled from her right to maintenance unless she re-marrys. This shows that the opposite party no.2 is living apart from him due to his neglect. For her maintenance the revisionist has not paid any amount to her. This also shows neglect on his part. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.5000/- per month in favour of wife as amount of maintenance which cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient and also disproportionate to the income of the husband who has himself admitted in the case u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act that his income is Rs.20,000/- per month. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 02.06.2025 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 11, 2025 Ashok Gupta (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad