Allahabad HC: Revision Is Not the Route to Enhance Maintenance; Approach Trial Court Under Section 127 CrPC

Dismissing a wife's criminal revision seeking higher maintenance, the Allahabad High Court held that enhancement requires fresh evidence and must be pursued before the trial court, not in revision.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a Muslim woman who sought enhancement of the Rs. 2,500 per month maintenance awarded to her by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur. Justice Achal Sachdev, sitting singly at Court No. 88, held that a revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed circumstances afresh, and that the proper remedy for enhancement lies in an alteration petition under Section 127 CrPC or Section 146 BNSS before the trial court. The judgment draws on the Supreme Court's direction in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) to reinforce that modifications to maintenance orders must be sought in the same proceeding in which the original order was passed.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Smt. Huda Khanam married Rizwan Khan on 05.11.2022 according to Muslim rites and customs. According to her counsel, her parents spent approximately Rs. 15 lakh on the marriage, yet the husband and his family allegedly harassed her for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded a new car and Rs. 5 lakh in cash as additional dowry. She alleged that her brothers-in-law sexually assaulted her in the presence of her husband, who then threatened her rather than intervening. She was subsequently thrown out of the matrimonial home.

On 30.07.2023, at around 4:00 P.M., the husband allegedly pronounced triple talaq over the phone. A panchayat followed, but the husband reportedly remained firm on his additional dowry demands and neither inquired about the revisionist nor provided any maintenance. She filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Rampur, seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month.

The husband's counsel disputed every allegation. He submitted that no phone call was made on 30.07.2023, no dowry demand was raised, and no triple talaq was pronounced over the phone. According to him, the parties had divorced in March 2023 in accordance with Sharia law, and the wife had received Rs. 5,60,000 thereafter and was living separately of her own accord. He further submitted that the wife is an educated graduate earning approximately Rs. 15,000 per month through tutoring and sewing, while the husband earns only Rs. 5,000–6,000 per month through daily wage labour and can barely support his parents.

The Family Court, by its order dated 01.08.2025 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 542 of 2023, partly allowed the application and directed the husband to pay Rs. 2,500 per month from the date of the application, i.e., 21.09.2023. The wife challenged this quantum in the present revision before the High Court.

The Legal Issue: Can a Revisional Court Enhance Maintenance?

The core question before Justice Achal Sachdev was whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under the CrPC, could directly increase the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court.

The court noted that the Family Court had relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajathi v. C. Ganesha, AIR 1999 (SC) 2374, for the proposition that a wife's statement that she is unable to maintain herself is sufficient, and that the burden shifts to the husband to prove otherwise. On that basis, the Family Court found that the revisionist had no source of income, that the husband had failed to prove she could support herself, and that he earned approximately Rs. 10,000 per month from truck helpership and other sources. It accordingly fixed maintenance at Rs. 2,500 per month.

The revisionist's grievance was that this amount was inadequate given the husband's actual income of around Rs. 45,000 per month and her standard of living. The High Court, however, framed the question differently: not whether the amount was adequate, but whether revision was the correct forum to seek its enhancement.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Achal Sachdev held that revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness of the impugned order. A revisional court may quash, remit, or set aside an order that is perverse or illegal, but it does not substitute its own factual determination for that of the trial court. Revisional power is not appellate power.

The court observed that enhancement of maintenance necessarily requires proof of changed circumstances such as an increase in the husband's income, inflation, or new needs of dependants. That exercise involves adducing and evaluating fresh evidence, inviting objections from the non-applicant, and forming a factual opinion. Revisional courts, the bench held, lack the power to conduct this evidentiary exercise.

Justice Achal Sachdev relied on the Supreme Court's direction in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020). At paragraph 128.3 of that judgment, the Supreme Court had directed: “that if the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any modification or variation, it would have to be done in the same proceeding in which the order was passed.” The High Court read this as reinforcing the principle that the trial court not the revisional court is the proper forum for any modification of a maintenance order.

The bench also noted that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed circumstances afresh. Its supervisory role is limited to correcting illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error. Since the Family Court's order of Rs. 2,500 per month was passed after applying the correct legal standard from Rajathi v. C. Ganesha and on the basis of evidence on record, there was no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision.

Direction to the Revisionist

Rather than leaving the revisionist without a remedy, the court directed her to approach the concerned trial court by filing an alteration petition under Section 127 CrPC or Section 146 BNSS for enhancement of the maintenance amount. The court specified that the trial court shall decide such a petition in accordance with law after hearing both parties.

Section 127 CrPC (now Section 146 BNSS) permits a Magistrate to alter a maintenance order on proof of a change in circumstances. This is the statutory mechanism for revisiting quantum, and it allows both sides to lead and test evidence before a court with the power to make factual findings.

Outcome

The criminal revision was dismissed. The impugned order dated 01.08.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 542 of 2023 was held to require no interference. The revisionist, Smt. Huda Khanam, was directed to seek enhancement of maintenance through an alteration petition under Section 127 CrPC or Section 146 BNSS before the trial court.