Smt Archana And Another vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 659 of 2026
Smt Archana And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Uttam Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhavesh Singh Jadaun, G.A., Satya
Dheer Singh Jadaun
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
1. Heard Sri Uttam Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Bhavesh
Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal
revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in
the prayer clause. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision
is delineated below:-
"The relief sought by the present Criminal Revision is that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to set aside the interim maintenance Order dated
07.02.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
District Kanpur Dehat in Case No.97 of 2024 (Archana and another Vs.
Amardeep) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which Ld. Principal Judge
Family Court Kanpur Dehat has granted the interim maintenance
Rs.1000/- per month to the only revisionist no.1 and nothing has been
granted to the Minor Child Revisionist No.2 so enhance the interim
maintenance in favor of the Revisionist No.1 Rs.15000/- in place of the
Rs.1000/- per month and also grant the interim maintenance to the minor
child revisionist no.2 Rs.5000/- per month from the date of the application
during the pendency of the Application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or may
further pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest
of justice."

CRLR No. 659 of 2026
2
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that O.P. No.2/husband is
working as an Assistant Teacher in a government school and getting
salary about Rs.1 lakh. He further submits that as per law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs.
th
, 1/4 of the
Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383
income of the husband has to be granted to the wife as maintenance
amount but vide impugned order dated 07.02.2025 only Rs.1000/- as
interim maintenance amount has been granted to the wife/revisionist no.1
whereas no amount of interim maintenance for minor son/revisionist no.2
has been granted. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section
125(2) Cr.P.C., amount of maintenance or interim maintenance may be
granted by passing order on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
either from the date of application or from the date of order. The relevant
provision of Section 125(2) is being delineated below :-
"125(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance
and expenses of 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."
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that as
per paragraphs 89, 91 and 93 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of
Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 324 , the amount of maintenance shall be granted from the
date of application. Paragraphs 89, 91 and 93 of
Rajnesh's case (supra)
are being delineated below :-
"89 . Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to
grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of
the order in Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be
appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all
cases, including Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure In the practical
working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is
significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance
for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair
play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.
91. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application

CRLR No. 659 of 2026
3
finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to
enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on
separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependant
spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the
Court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution,
it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the
application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court.
93. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about
uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by
directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the
application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim
maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the
period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is
not within the control of the applicant."
5. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 did not dispute that O.P. No.2 works as
a teacher in a government school, but he denied that O.P. No.2 is getting
Rs.1 lakh salary as O.P. No.2 has not provided his salary slip, so the
amount could not be ascertained as to whether he is getting Rs. 1 lakh
salary or not. He further submits that the revisional court can only
examine legality, propriety or jurisdictional correctness.
6. Having gone through the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and also considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court on this aspect, this Court finds that the amount of Rs.1000/- granted
as interim maintenance is too meagre, unjustifiable and not sufficient for
contesting the case, bread and butter, rent of residence, medical expenses
(as revisionist no.1/wife is suffering from neurological problem/Bells's
palsy) and other expenses etc. Moreover, Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
grants the High Court and Sessions Judges the power to call for and
examine the records of any inferior criminal court. It is a vital legal
mechanism used to verify the legality, correctness, and propriety of
judicial orders or proceedings.
7. This Court also directs to the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur
Dehat to deduct the 1/4th gross salary of the opposite party No.2 to be

CRLR No. 659 of 2026
4
paid in the bank account of the revisionist, relying upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dimple vs. Nishant

Pravinbhai Soni (Transfer Petition (Civil) No.3147/2024 decided on
27.02.2026) as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the employer to
deduct the amount of maintenance from the salary of the husband and the
same should be transferred in the bank account of the wife. The relevant
paragraphs are delineated herein below:
"We inquired with the husband whether he is ready and willing to deposit
an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only)
inclusive of Rs.1,38,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand only)
towards arrears of interim maintenance. However, husband has outright
declined to pay anything for the maintenance to his wife and minor
daughter.
7. In such circumstances,
we are left with no other option but to direct
the employer of the respondent-husband, namely, Rishad Shipping and
Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd., referred to above, that an amount of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be deducted per
month from the salary of Nishant Praveenbhai Soni and the said
amount shall be transferred by RTGS to the account of his wife,
namely, Dimpal Soni.
(Emphasis supplied)"
8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and also in the light of law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury
th
vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383 , the 1/4
gross salary/income of the husband has to be granted to the wife as
maintenance amount and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in (supra), this Court directs the Principal Judge, Family
Dimple
Court, Kanpur Dehat to pass an order directing the Basic Education
th
Officer, Kanpur Dehat to deduct 1/4 of the gross salary of O.P. no.2 and
get credited the said amount in the bank account of revisionist no.1
namely, Smt. Archana as provided, as expeditiously as possible and
decide the pending application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. preferably
within a period of six months after providing opportunity of hearing and

CRLR No. 659 of 2026
5
without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party and also
determine appropriate maintenance in respect of revisionist (wife) as well
as minor son in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment of Rajnesh (supra).
9. With the aforesaid directions, the instant revision stands
disposed of.

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
May 22, 2026
Manish Himwan
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH HIMWAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad