Judicial officers must maintain integrity in personal litigation; timely resolution of maintenance applications is essential to prevent destitution.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Diwakar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-wife, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the entire record.

2. This present revision has been preferred seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No.387 of 2019, filed by the revisionist-wife on 17.8.20219.

3. Succinctly, the brief facts are that the revisionist-wife and the respondent-husband were married on 4.5.2002, according to Muslim rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the respondent-husband was serving as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) at the District Court in Sonbhadra. Currently, he holds the position of Special Judge (UP Dacoity Affected Area) in District Etah and previously served as Additional Principal Judge at the Family Court in Jaunpur from 3.8.2019 to 4.7.2022. The revisionist-wife asserts that her parents spent approximately Rs.30 lakhs on the marriage. Additionally, during the engagement ceremony, Rs.11 lakhs were provided to purchase an Indica car; however, the respondent-husband declined to register the car in his name due to his recent judicial appointment. Shortly after the marriage, the respondent-husband allegedly demanded an additional dowry of Rs.20 lakhs from the revisionist-wife's parents. When this demand was not met, he purportedly subjected her to cruelty, including physical assaults, beatings, verbal abuse, and threats of divorce.

4. The revisionist-wife endured all acts of cruelty because her husband was a judge who commanded significant respect in society. To preserve his honour and reputation and hoping that he would eventually change, she initially refrained from filing any complaints or maintenance applications. She also chose not to disclose his conduct to his colleagues or their spouses to maintain the family's honour. The couple has four children from their marriage; Km. Rana Rajak, Km. Nazia Rajak, Km. Subhana, and Isha Rajak, all of whom have been living with the respondent-husband since birth.

5. On 18.11.2013, the revisionist-wife was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was also served with a Talaknama dated 2.12.2013 along with a copy of Mufti’s decision in this regard by post, which was accordingly returned and replied to by the revisionist-wife vide reply dated 30.12.2013 as a bundle of lies and false assertions.

6. Leaving no option for conciliation and compromise, on 20.1.2014, the revisionist-wife filed a Criminal Complaint No.366 of 2014 against her husband Ali Raza and 12 Others, under Sections 498- A, 504, 506, 323, 120-B IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Domestic Violence Act and two cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing Misc. Case No. 21 of 2014 and Misc. Case No.387 of 2021 on 30.1.2014 and 17.8.2019, respectively, against the respondent-husband before the learned Family Judge, Sonbhadra.

7. In Complaint Case No.366 of 2014, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, issued summons on 11.9.2015 to Ali Raza (respondent-husband), Abdul Rahim, Smt. Jahida Begum, Sohrab Ali, Sabnam, Zareena, Shyara, Neha, Tarrunum, Babloo, Moin, and Smt. Ruksana under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Hazrat Ali was summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, and 506 of IPC, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

8. The order dated 11.9.2015 was challenged before this Court through Application U/S 482 No.32214 of 2025. On 3.11.2015, this Court referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Center, directing the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the name of the revisionist-wife through a demand draft with the Registrar General of this Court within three weeks of the order. The mediation proceedings were to be concluded within three months. The Court also stayed the proceedings in Complaint Case No.366 of 2014 until the next date of listing.

9. Since then, the