A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that proceedings contemplated under Section 340 CrPC are independent in nature and are not connected with the adjudication of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

The bench added that it is always open to the concerned party to pursue the proceedings under Section 340 CrPC independently in accordance with law.

The Court was with a criminal revision plea filed by a Husband challenging an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra, which partly allowed the wife's maintenance application.

The trial court had directed the husband, a Divisional Engineer in the Railways, to pay Rs. 15K per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of application and Rs 20K from the date of the order.

Before the High Court, the husband contended that the quantum was excessive and disproportionate to his actual income.

He further contended that the trial court erred in deciding the maintenance proceedings despite the pendency of his application under Section 340 CrPC, alleging that the wife had fabricated and forged documents.

The revisionist relied upon a 2023 ruling of the High Court in Amit Bajpai v. State of U.P., wherein it was observed that where an application under Section 340 CrPC has been filed, the maintenance proceedings should ordinarily be concluded only after the said application is decided in accordance with law

The single judge, however, rejected the husband's contentions, noting that the facts of the present case stood on an entirely different footing.

The record revealed that the husband had filed the Section 340 CrPC application only after the conclusion of final arguments and when the matter had already been fixed for the pronouncement of judgment.

"The endorsements made on the application clearly indicate that the proceedings had reached the stage of final adjudication. In such circumstances, the Trial Court cannot be faulted for proceeding to pronounce the judgment without first deciding the application under Section 340 CrPC" the bench noted.

It further clarified that merely because an application under Section 340 CrPC is filed at the stage when the matter has already been reserved for judgment, it does not ipso facto oblige the Trial Court to defer the pronouncement of judgment.

Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's order.

It noted that the trial court had appropriately factored in the husband's admitted basic monthly income of Rs. 50K and his total monthly income of around Rs. 74K.

Concluding that the maintenance amount was neither arbitrary nor excessive, the High Court held that the impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity, and consequently dismissed the revision petition.

Counsel for Revisionist(s): Satyarth Agarwal, Siddharth Agrawal

Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Gaurav Dwivedi, Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi

Case Title - Umesh Vidyarthi Versus Madhubala And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433