Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting legality and propriety; it does not extend to re-appreciating evidence for enhancing maintenance. The proper remedy for modification of a maintenance order is an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (or Section 146 BNSS) before the trial court.

HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist, today in the Court, is

taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite

party no.2 and AGA for State and perused the record.

3. Present criminal revision is being preferred against the judgment and

order dated 01.08.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Rampur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.542 of 2023 (Smt. Huda Khanam Vs

Rizwan Khan), by which the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. moved

by the revisionist has been partly allowed and the opposite party no.2 was

directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the revisionist, from

the date of application i.e 21.09.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 05.11.2022 the

revisionist was married with opposite party no.2 according to Muslim rites

and customs. The revisionist's parents had given dowry beyond their means

in the marriage and had spent about Rs.15 lakh, yet after the marriage, the

opposite party no.2 and his family started taunting and harassing the

revisionist for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded a new car and Rs.5

lakh cash, as additional dowry. The brother-in-laws of the revisionist has

repeatedly sexually assaulted the revisionist in front of the opposite party

no.2, yet he threatened the revisionist. The revisionist later was thrown out

CRLR No. 5384 of 2025

2

of the house and was pressurized to fulfill the aforesaid demands of

additional dowry. Upon the refusal, the opposite party no.2 on 30.07.2023 at

around 4:00 P.M., pronounced triple talaq on phone and thereafter a

panchayat was held but the opposite party no.2 was adamant with the

additional dowry demand and the opposite party no.2 never inquired about

the revisionist nor provided any maintenance.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the

revisionist has filed an application filed u/s 125 C.r.P.C. for decree of

maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- but the learned Family Court vide its

impugned order dated 01.08.2025 awarded a mere amount of Rs.2500/-

without considering the income source of the opposite party no.2 and the

standard of living of the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 earns around

Rs.45,000/- per month and is fully capable of providing maintenance to the

revisionist as claimed in the application, hence the revisionist has preferred

the present revision for enhancement of the maintenance amount so

awarded.

6. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently

opposed the arguments advanced by the revisionist and submits that opposite

party no.2 and his family never physically assaulted or threw the revisionist

out of the house and all the allegations are false and baseless. The Opposite

party no.2 did not make any phone calls to the revisionist on July 30, 2023,

nor did he demand dowry or cash, nor did he pronounce triple talaq over the

phone. Due to the opposite party no.2's low income, the revisionist was not

agreeable to him and frequently caused conflicts at home due to

unreasonable demands, thus under imense pressure from the revisionist and

her family, opposite party no.2 agreed to a divorce her in March-2023. The

revisionist and the opposite party no.2 were divorced in accordance with

Sharia law and the after receiving an amount of Rs.5,60,000/-, the revisionist

is living separately as per her wish and happiness, whereas the revisionist

has never thrown by the opposite party no.2 out of the house nor has she

suffered any physical or mental harassment, therefore the revisionist is not

CRLR No. 5384 of 2025

3

entitled to receive the main