Court Directs Revisionist to Seek Appropriate Remedy in Trial Court for Changed Circumstances
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, under the bench of Justice Achal Sachdev, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Smt. Huda Khanam seeking enhancement of maintenance. The petition was directed against an order by the Family Court, Rampur, which had awarded her Rs. 2,500 per month under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The revisionist, Huda Khanam, argued that the maintenance awarded was insufficient given her husband's reported income and her standard of living. She claimed her husband, Rizwan Khan, earned around Rs. 45,000 per month and was capable of providing a higher maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000 per month. Her counsel submitted that the Family Court did not adequately consider her husband's income and her living standard when deciding the maintenance amount.
Countering these claims, Rizwan Khan's counsel contended that the allegations were false and baseless, asserting that the revisionist was an educated graduate capable of earning her own livelihood. Furthermore, it was argued that Rizwan earned a modest income of Rs. 5,000-6,000 per month as a daily wage laborer and had already settled a significant sum during divorce proceedings.
The High Court, in its judgment, reiterated the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it cannot directly alter maintenance amounts. The court highlighted that any request for enhancement should be addressed through Section 127 Cr.P.C. or Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, upon proving changed circumstances such as increased income or inflation. The court quoted the Supreme Court's guidance in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), underscoring the need to seek modification in the same proceeding where the original order was passed.
Justice Sachdev affirmed that revisional courts are confined to examining the legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness of orders and cannot re-evaluate evidence or assess changed circumstances afresh. The judgment directs the revisionist to approach the trial court for any alteration in maintenance, ensuring an opportunity for both parties to present fresh evidence and arguments.
The dismissal of the revision petition upholds the Family Court's order while providing a pathway for the revisionist to seek a review based on new evidence of changed circumstances. The ruling reinforces the procedural framework for maintenance enhancement, maintaining the trial court's role in such fact-intensive inquiries.
Bottom line:-
A revision petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 BNSS) for enhancement of maintenance cannot be entertained by the High Court as revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness. Enhancement of maintenance must be sought through Section 127 Cr.P.C. / Section 146 BNSS before the trial court, which has the authority to evaluate evidence and changed circumstances.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 127 Cr.P.C., Section 144 BNSS, Section 146 BNSS
Smt. Huda Khanam v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2901008
