CRLR/365/2024 of SHAHEEN AND 2 OTHERS Vs State of UP AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 365 of 2024 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press the present revision despite the matter having been called out.  3. On the previous date, none appeared on behalf of the revisionist and it was made clear by this Court that in the event either of the parties remained absent on the next date of hearing, the instant revision shall be heard and decided on the basis of evidence available on record. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to decide the revision on the basis of available record and the assistance of learned A.G.A. for the State.  4. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionists have challenged the judgment and order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, in Case No.246 of 2020, Shaheen and others v. Haseenullah alias Mannu, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application moved by the revisionists was allowed and opposite party no.2 was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month each to revisionist nos.1, 2 and 3 from the date of application. It was further directed that the maintenance payable to revisionist nos.2 and 3 shall continue till they attain majority. 5. The present revision has been preferred only for enhancement of the maintenance amount. It is stated that revisionist no.1 is residing at her parental home along with her two minor daughters in compelling circumstances and has no independent source of income. It is further stated that opposite party no.2 has sufficient income from agriculture and dairy business and is capable of paying Rs.50,000/- per month towards Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd. Ayyuq Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shaheen And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) maintenance. It has also been urged that the court below ought to have granted maintenance from the date of filing of the original application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and not from the date of application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. 6. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, has recorded a finding that revisionist no.1 had sufficient cause to live separately from opposite party no.2. The court below has also held that opposite party no.2 failed to prove that revisionist no.1 had any independent source of income. These findings are in favour of the revisionists and have not been disturbed. 7. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the Family Court considered the assertion of the revisionists that opposite party no.2 was an agriculturist having agricultural land at Village Papri, Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur and Village Garhi Abdullah Khan, Tehsil Un, District Shamli, and was also engaged in the business of selling milk from cows and buffaloes. However, though it was alleged that opposite party no.2 was earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per month, no cogent documentary evidence was brought on record to establish his exact income. 8. The Family Court also took note of the stand of opposite party no.2, who denied ownership of agricultural land, denied carrying on any dairy business, and claimed that he was unemployed and suffering from illness. Upon appreciation of the rival pleadings and the evidence available on record, the court below fixed maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month each in favour of the three revisionists. 9. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate court unless the finding recorded by the court below suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or manifest error. The determination of maintenance is essentially a question dependent upon the material placed before the Family Court regarding the needs of the claimants and the means of the person liable to maintain them. 10. In the present case, the revisionists have not been able to point out any material perversity in the finding recorded by the Family Court. The principal ground for enhancement is that opposite party no.2 is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month, but the said assertion was not supported by reliable documentary evidence before the court below. In absence of such material, the amount fixed by the Family Court cannot be said to be so arbitrary or unreasonable as to warrant interference in revision. CRLR No. 365 of 2024 2 11. So far as the grievance regarding the date from which maintenance has been awarded is concerned, the Family Court has exercised its discretion on the basis of the facts of the case. No such illegality has been shown which may justify interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to enhance the amount of maintenance in the present revision. However, it is always open to the revisionists to move an appropriate application in accordance with law for enhancement of maintenance, if there is any change in circumstances or if better and additional evidence regarding the income and financial capacity of opposite party no.2 becomes available. 13. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, the criminal revision is dismissed. April 20, 2026 Kuldeep CRLR No. 365 of 2024 3 (Garima Prashad,J.)