The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC is strictly supervisory and cannot be used as a vehicle to enhance maintenance amounts. This ruling clarifies a recurring procedural confusion among practitioners and reinforces the statutory boundaries between revision and alteration remedies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revisionist, Smt. Sonam Singh, sought enhancement of the monthly maintenance amount awarded to her under Section 125 CrPC by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat. The trial court had granted her Rs. 12,500 per month from 15.11.2019, the date of filing the application. The revisionist contended that this amount was inadequate given the husband’s income and her destitute condition.
Key Facts
- The marriage between Smt. Sonam Singh and Rustam Singh was solemnized on 28.02.2017 with Hindu rites
- The revisionist’s father reportedly spent approximately Rs. 15 lakhs on dowry and gifts
- The in-laws allegedly demanded additional dowry in the form of a Bolero car and Rs. 5 lakhs
- On 31.10.2017, the revisionist fell ill and was allegedly beaten and denied medical care
- On 13.10.2019, the revisionist was sent back to her paternal home with all her Stridhan retained by the in-laws
- She filed a police report at Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar
- Since 13.10.2019, she has resided at her paternal home with no financial support from her husband
- The revisionist claims she has no source of income, no trade or craft, and is unable to maintain herself
- The opposite party, Rustam Singh, is employed in the Indian Army with a monthly salary of Rs. 60,000 and additional income from land and shops
- Rustam Singh has filed a divorce suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Suit No. 687/2019), which is pending
- The revisionist is described as an educated woman and a musician
Procedural History
- 28.02.2017: Marriage solemnized
- 31.10.2017: Alleged incident of cruelty and denial of medical care
- 13.10.2019: Revisionist sent back to paternal home; police complaint registered
- 15.11.2019: Application under Section 125 CrPC filed before Family Court, Kanpur Dehat
- 20.08.2024: Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 12,500 per month
- 27.05.2026: Criminal Revision No. 5136 of 2024 filed before Allahabad High Court seeking enhancement to Rs. 40,000 per month
Relief Sought
The revisionist sought enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 12,500 to Rs. 40,000 per month, retroactive to the date of filing the application (15.11.2019).
The Legal Issue
Can a High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC, enhance the quantum of maintenance awarded by a trial court, or is such enhancement permissible only through an application under Section 127 CrPC?
Arguments Presented
For the Revisionist
The revisionist, through her counsel, argued that the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,500 was grossly inadequate given the husband’s monthly salary of Rs. 60,000 and additional income from land and shops. It was contended that the trial court failed to properly assess the husband’s net income and ignored the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha. The revisionist emphasized her destitute condition, lack of employability, and the husband’s ability to pay.
For the Respondent/State
The counsel for the opposite party contended that the revisionist had not led any evidence regarding the husband’s net income or liabilities. He argued that the trial court had correctly applied the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha and that the revisionist’s remedy for enhancement lay not in revision but in a petition under Section 127 CrPC. It was further submitted that the revisionist had been oscillating between matrimonial and paternal homes and had filed a divorce petition herself, undermining her claim of destitution.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the nature of revisional jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC and its distinction from appellate or alteration remedies. It emphasized that revisional power is not an appellate power and cannot be used to substitute the factual findings of the trial court.
"The revisional court may quash, remit, or set aside an order if it is perverse or illegal, but it cannot substitute its own factual determination. Revisional power is supervisory, not appellate."
The Court cited Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury to reaffirm that 25% of the husband’s net monthly salary is only a broad benchmark, not a rigid formula. However, it stressed that such calculations require verified affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities. The trial court’s failure to direct filing of such affidavits, if any, would be a procedural flaw - but no such flaw was evident in the impugned order.
"Where the applicant before the trial court has made only an oral submission without leading any evidence regarding the net income of the opposite party, it becomes virtually impossible for the trial court to assess the maintenance amount with reasonable certainty."
The Court noted that the revisionist had not challenged the findings of the trial court on the merits of the case, but only sought enhancement. It held that enhancement requires proof of changed circumstances and fresh evidence, which revisional courts are not empowered to evaluate.
"Enhancement necessarily requires proof of changed circumstances, involving adducing and evaluating fresh evidence. Revisional courts lack the power to conduct such an evaluation."
The Court further relied on Rajnesh v. Neha to underscore that any modification of an existing maintenance order must be sought in the same proceeding under Section 127 CrPC (now Section 146 BNSS). The revision petition, therefore, was not the correct forum.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Court held that the enhancement of maintenance cannot be sought through revision under Section 125 CrPC. The revisionist is directed to file an application under Section 127 CrPC (now Section 146 BNSS) before the Family Court, Kanpur Dehat, for enhancement of the maintenance amount. The trial court shall decide the application after hearing both parties and on the basis of verified affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities. A certified copy of this order is to be transmitted forthwith to the Family Court for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Revision Cannot Be a Substitute for Alteration
- Practitioners must not file revision petitions under Section 125 CrPC seeking enhancement of maintenance
- Any request to increase maintenance due to changed circumstances must be made through a separate application under Section 127 CrPC or Section 146 BNSS
- Courts will dismiss revision petitions seeking enhancement as non-maintainable, regardless of the adequacy of the original award
Affidavits of Income Are Mandatory
- Failure to file affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities by either party will be taken adversely
- Trial courts must insist on such affidavits before determining maintenance, per Rajnesh v. Neha
- Oral submissions alone are insufficient to justify maintenance amounts, even if the husband is employed
Net Income, Not Gross Salary, Is the Basis
- Maintenance calculations must be based on net income after statutory deductions and taxes
- Claims based on gross salary without accounting for deductions will not be accepted
- Courts must consider liabilities, dependents, and standard of living - not just income
