The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a revision petition by a wife challenging a trial court’s order on compensation stating that the amount was not sufficient conspiring the salary of her husband. The bench was of the opinion that discretionary power of the trial court in granting maintenance from the date of order is not been completely blocked.

“The Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 has not completely blocked the discretionary power of the trial court in granting maintenance from the date of order in case there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same. The trial court has in the background of financial liabilities and family responsibilities falling upon him has taken a realistic view in the matter. In my view, the powers have been applied in judicious manner calling for no interference in the order”, observed Justice Jyotsna Sharma in the matter.

Advocate Pradeep Kumar Tripathi appeared for the revisionist, Advocate Keshari Nath Tripathi appeared for the respondent no.2 and Advocate O.P. Mishra, A.G.A. appeared for the State.

In the present matter the revisionist-wife challenged an order passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, dated November 19, 2022, under Section 125 CrPC whereby the respondent No.2/husband was directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month.

The revisionist raised two grounds:

- while stating Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 stated that the application for maintenance was filed on September 1, 2020 and came to be decided after a gap of almost two years, hence, the court was not justified in granting maintenance from the date of the order.

- that the amount of maintenance is quite deficient considering the monthly earning of her husband (Rs. 47, 190/- per month).

However, the opposite party contended in that the respondent no.2 had to cough up hefty amount of money to sort out the matter, which had arisen between real brother of respondent no.2, his wife and the revisionist. It was further argued that the revisionist- wife of respondent no.2 had illicit relations with the real brother of respondent no.2.

It was further urged that in cases where husband became the victim of the circumstances his wife would not be entitled for any maintenance amount and even if it is presumed that she is entitled for the same the amount of maintenance decided is perfectly justified. Additionally, it was pointed out that it is he who is taking care of only daughter.

The bench after considering the facts and circumstances of the matter was of the opinion that the Trial Court’s order need not be interfered with as it considered the peculiar facts relating to his family members and bearing the brunt of complex human relationships in a judicious manner.

Cause Title: Ranjeeta @ Ravita v. State of U.P. and Another

Click here to read/download the Judgment




Justice Jyotsna Sharma

Agatha Shukla