Allahabad High Court Overturns Trial Court's Rejection of Maintenance Application Due to Typographical Error

Court Orders Fresh Adjudication on Merits After Technicality-Based Dismissal in Smt. Arti's Case

News Report: 

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the trial court's decision to reject a maintenance application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application, submitted by Smt. Arti and her minor son, was initially dismissed by the trial court due to a typographical error in the guardian's name. The High Court, led by Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma, emphasized that technical errors should not overshadow the merits of a case.

The case, registered as Criminal Revision No. 646 of 2025, revolved around an application for maintenance from Smt. Arti, the wife of the opposite party Ravi, and their minor son. The trial court had dismissed the application solely because the guardian's name was incorrectly typed as Smt. Minakshi instead of Smt. Arti. This decision was contested by the revisionists, who argued that such a dismissal was unjustified without examining the substantive evidence and circumstances presented.

Justice Sharma, after hearing the arguments from both sides, found that the trial court's dismissal was based solely on a technicality rather than the merits of the case. The High Court noted that the trial court had not adequately considered the material available on record, including the affidavit and evidence submitted by Smt. Arti.

The High Court's judgment emphasized the necessity of evaluating the merits and evidence in cases concerning maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., rather than dismissing applications over minor typographical errors. The court ordered the matter to be remanded back to the trial court for fresh adjudication, instructing the revisionists to correct the guardian's name in the application with the court's permission. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice is served based on substantive evidence rather than procedural technicalities.

Bottom Line:

Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance cannot be rejected solely on a typographical error regarding the name of the guardian, without considering the merits of the case and the material on record. 

Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Smt. Arti v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2781705