Huda Khanam v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026

The revisionist-wife challenged the Family Court order granting her maintenance of Rs. 2,500 per month under Section 125 CrPC.

The parties were married in November 2022 according to Muslim rites.

The wife alleged that her parents had given approximately Rs. 15 lakh in dowry at the time of marriage.

She further alleged harassment for additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakh and a car.

The wife also accused her brother-in-law of repeated sexual assault in the presence of her husband.

According to the wife, she was later thrown out of the matrimonial home and the husband pronounced triple talaq over phone on July 30, 2023.

Before the High Court, the wife sought enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 30,000 per month.

It was argued that the husband earned around Rs. 45,000 per month and was capable of paying enhanced maintenance.

The husband contended that he had divorced the wife according to Sharia law after paying Rs. 5.60 lakh.

He claimed to be a daily wage labourer earning only Rs. 5,000–6,000 per month.

The High Court noted that the husband failed to prove that the wife had independent means sufficient for survival.

However, the Court examined whether enhancement of maintenance could be granted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

The Allahabad High Court held that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction.

The Court observed that while exercising revision powers, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or reassess changed circumstances afresh.

Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that enhancement or alteration of maintenance necessarily requires examination of fresh evidence regarding change in circumstances.

The Court observed that such factual inquiry falls outside the scope of revisional jurisdiction.

The Bench held that revisional courts cannot substitute their own factual determination for that of the trial court.

The Court further clarified that the proper remedy for enhancement of maintenance lies under Section 127 CrPC or Section 146 BNSS before the court that passed the original order.

The High Court observed that enhancement proceedings may involve examination of increased income, inflation, or changed financial needs of dependents.

The Court stated that such evidentiary exercise can only be conducted by the competent trial court.

Accordingly, the wife was granted liberty to approach the concerned court under Section 127 CrPC/Section 146 BNSS seeking enhancement of maintenance.

The revision plea was therefore dismissed.

The judgment clearly demarcates the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction.

The Court reaffirmed that revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, illegality, or perversity.

The ruling strengthens procedural discipline in maintenance proceedings under criminal law.

The decision ensures that enhancement of maintenance is based on proper evidentiary assessment by trial courts.

The judgment protects the procedural rights of both parties by requiring opportunity to lead evidence regarding changed circumstances.

The ruling is significant in maintenance jurisprudence under both CrPC and BNSS frameworks.

The Court adopted a legally balanced approach by recognizing the wife’s grievances while adhering to statutory limitations on revisional powers.