The Allahabad High Court has partially allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside a family court’s maintenance order for a wife after noting her regular, unexplained receipt of bank transfers from an unrelated third party. Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla ruled that while the wife is disentitled from claiming maintenance, the maintenance awarded to the couple’s minor son remains valid and undisturbed.
Background of the Case
The revisionist, Devendra Saraswat, approached the High Court to challenge an order dated December 6, 2024, issued by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Agra. The trial court had allowed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) filed by Saraswat’s wife (Opposite Party No. 2) and minor son (Opposite Party No. 3), granting them monthly maintenance of Rs 15,000 and Rs 10,000, respectively. Saraswat contended that the trial court’s order was based on surmises and conjectures, and was passed arbitrarily and in a mechanical manner without the proper application of judicial mind.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist presented two primary grounds for the revision. First, they argued that the trial court failed to consider their specific plea under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. that the wife was living in adultery. Counsel pointed out that during her cross-examination, the wife admitted to regularly receiving bank transfers of Rs 10,000 from an unrelated third party, Lalit Mohan Pandey. Although she denied having an illicit relationship and claimed she did not know Pandey, had never met him, and did not know his address, she admitted that the transfers continued even after separating from her husband. The revisionist argued that these regular, unexplained payments either indicated she was living in adultery or that she had an independent source of income and was capable of maintaining herself, which would disentitle her to maintenance in either situation. Additionally, Saraswat claimed his income had reduced from Rs 27,000–Rs 28,000 per month to Rs 22,000 after losing his job at a shoe manufacturing company due to a complaint filed by his wife.
The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) representing the State opposed the revision. The A.G.A. argued that the bank transfers were financial assistance received by the wife for medical treatment and should not lead to any adverse inferences. Furthermore, the A.G.A. contended that Saraswat’s claims of job loss and reduced income were unsupported by any documentary evidence and should be dismissed.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Upon reviewing the record, the High Court found merit in the revisionist’s arguments regarding the unexplained bank transfers. Addressing the wife’s testimony about receiving funds from a man she claimed not to know, Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed:
“These statements are not free from doubt and the circumstances relating to such monetary transfers have not been satisfactorily explained by O.P. No. 2 before the trial court.”
The Court held that the trial court had failed to adequately deal with this crucial aspect, stating:
“the unexplained and regular receipt of money by O.P. No. 2 from a third person was a relevant circumstance which required due consideration by the trial court while examining the plea of the revisionist under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.”
Regarding the photographs submitted by Saraswat to support the plea of adultery, the High Court noted that while the trial court’s reasoning for discarding them (due to the face not being clearly visible) was incorrect, the photographs were still inadmissible because “the said photographs were not proved in accordance with law and, therefore, could not be read in evidence.”
Concerning the revisionist’s income, the Court agreed with the A.G.A. that there was no cogent documentary evidence to support the claim of reduced salary due to job loss. Regarding the couple’s minor son, the Court noted that his entitlement to maintenance was undisputed by the revisionist and legally sound.
Decision of the Court
Consequently, the High Court held that the wife was not entitled to claim maintenance from the revisionist. The Court set aside the trial court’s order directing maintenance to the wife but affirmed and left undisturbed the direction to pay Rs 10,000 per month to the minor son. The criminal revision was therefore partly allowed.
Case Title: Devendra Saraswat Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 408 of 2025
Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
Date: July 6, 2026
