Smt Kusum vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4112 of 2025
Smt Kusum
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhishe Pandey, Praveen Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chakra Dhaar Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Praveen Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned
counsel for revisionist, learned AGA representing opposite party no. 1, Mr.
Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Chakra Dhaar Mishra,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. The revisionist Smt. Kusum has approached this Court by means of
present criminal revision assailing the validity of impugned judgment and
order dated 15.05.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
No. 2, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as trial court) passed in Case
No. 1405 of 2022 (CNR No. UPMZ020034652022) (Rukhsar Khan Vs.
Tanveer Khan) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jamaniya, District
Ghazipur wherein the trial court allowing the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
filed by the revisionist directed opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 8,000/- per
month maintenance to the revisionist.
3. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has been
filed on the grounds that the impugned order is wholly illegal unjustified,
against the provisions of law, based on presumptions, the trial court
committed manifest error by passing the impugned order, it is based on
surmises and conjunctures, the trial court passed the impugned order
arbitrarily, illegally without going into the merit of the case. Accordingly,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction.

CRLR No. 4112 of 2025
2
4. After some length of argument learned counsel for revisionist confined his
argument only to the extent that the trial court held fastening opposite party
no. 3 to pay the amount of maintenance while no liability upon opposite
party no. 2 has been fastened. Elaborating his submissions learned counsel
for revisionist submitted that the opposite party no. 3 is the real son of the
revisionist while opposite party no. 2 is her step son. Only on the ground that
Opposite Party No. 3 is her real son, whereas the trial court discharged the
opposite party no. 2 from his liability due to being step son of the
revisionist. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is liable to be
modified by fastening the same liability upon Opposite Party No. 2 as has
been imposed upon Opposite Party No. 3.
5. Per contra learned AGA and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the criminal revision and submitted
that in presence of real son having sufficient means to maintain his mother,
her step son cannot be held liable for the same. In view of above the present
criminal revision is not only devoid of merit but it is filed with malafide
intention, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
6. Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides as under:-
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to
maintain -
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or
not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married
daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by
reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to
maintain itself, or

CRLR No. 4112 of 2025
3
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a
Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or
refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the
maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such
monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to
such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor
female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance,
until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that
the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not
possessed of sufficient means.[Provided further that the
Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding
regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-
section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the
interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother,
and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate
considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate may from time to time direct.Provided also that an
application for the monthly allowance for the interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second
proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days
from the date of the service of notice of the application to such
person. Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter, -
(a)"minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the
Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have
attained his majority,
(b)"wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has
obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married.

CRLR No. 4112 of 2025
4
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from
the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the
application for maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to
comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every
breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due
in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such
person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for
the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be, Substituted by Act 50 of 2001,
Section 2 for "allowance" (w.e.f. 24-9-2001) remaining unpaid
after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made
:Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any
amount due under this section unless application be made to the
Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the
date on which it became due:Provided further that if such person
offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him,
and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider
any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order
under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied
that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation. - If a husband
has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a
mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's
refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of

CRLR No. 4112 of 2025
5
proceeding, as the case may be, Substituted by Act 50 of 2001,
Section 2 for "allowance" (w.e.f. 24-9-2001). from her husband
under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any
sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they
are living separately by mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been
made under this section is living in adultery, or that without
sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they
are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall
cancel the order."
7. While considering the maintenance to parents the court has to see the
relation of parent and children between the parties and further whether the
parties seeking maintenance is unable to maintain his/her child parent as the
case may be. The Court must also determine whether the person from whom
maintenance is claimed has sufficient means to provide such maintenance.
From the submissions advanced by both sides, it is evident that the
revisionist is the real mother of opposite party No. 3 and the stepmother of
opposite party No. 2. It is possible that, at the time of filing the application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the revisionist was unable to maintain herself but
after the order of trial court the amount for her maintenance has been earned
by court's order, opposite party no. 3 has not challenged such order meaning
thereby opposite party no. 3 is accepted the order of trial court in aforesaid
circumstance now the revisionist is capable to maintain herself getting the
maintenance amount from her real son so now she is lost her status of
incapability to maintain herself.
8. Even a person having insufficient means to maintain himself may have
right to file application for maintenance against relevant persons but in
furtherance of such proceeding of maintenance if the Court allows the same
fastening a person liable to maintain the person claiming maintenance then
by virtue of order of Court. The inability of person claiming maintenance to
maintain himself/herself become to an end after order of Court to pay
maintenance the person in whose favour the maintenance order is passed

CRLR No. 4112 of 2025
6
cannot claim another maintenance to another person. Similarly it is right of
the claimant that if there two or more persons are under obligation to
maintain the applicant from whom and in which ratio the maintenance
amount be paid. It is Court to decide that from whom and to what extent
maintenance be made payable.
9. In view of above we find that this criminal revision has been filed only
with intention to harass the opposite party no. 2 without any substantive
legal basis. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and
is liable to be dismissed. The criminal revision is hereby .
dismissed
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
July 14, 2026
Arti
Digitally signed by :-
ARTI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad