She won maintenance. The High Court cut it without hearing her. The Supreme Court restored it.

Two revisions, one silent woman, and a State that took the husband's side

Asiya Khan and her minor daughter walked into a Family Court in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, seeking maintenance from the husband and father. The Family Court agreed: on 20 March 2021, it ordered the husband to pay Rs. 12,000 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That order should have been the end of a routine family dispute. Instead, it became the beginning of a procedural nightmare that ended only when the Supreme Court of India, on 12 February 2024, asked a simple question: how could the Allahabad High Court reduce a woman's maintenance without hearing her, and then dismiss her own revision without even telling the husband?

The answer, delivered by a Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was a sharp rebuke to the High Court and an even sharper one to the State of Uttar Pradesh, which had filed a counter-affidavit through its Superintendent of Police opposing the wife's claims. The Supreme Court set aside both High Court orders, restored the original maintenance of Rs. 12,000 per month, and directed the High Court to hear the revisions afresh. But the real story is not just about the money. It is about what happens when the machinery of the State lines up against a woman asking for her statutory right to maintenance.

The Family Court order that started it all

Asiya Khan and her daughter filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court at Rampur. The provision is straightforward: a wife unable to maintain herself, and a minor child, are entitled to monthly maintenance from the husband or father. The Family Court, after hearing the parties, granted a total of Rs. 12,000 per month. The exact breakdown is not recorded in the Supreme Court's judgment, but the sum was meant to cover both mother and child.

Neither side was satisfied. The husband filed a revision — CRLR No. 1465 of 2021 — in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the amount was too high. Asiya Khan and her daughter filed their own revision — Criminal Revision No. 260 of 2022 — arguing that the amount was too low. Two revisions, two different outcomes, and one common thread: the High Court never heard the woman.

What the High Court did — and did not do

On 26 August 2021, the Allahabad High Court disposed of the husband's revision. It reduced the maintenance by Rs. 2,000 per month. The order was passed without issuing any notice to Asiya Khan or her daughter. They were not heard. They did not even know the revision was being decided.

That is the first ratio of this judgment: a High Court cannot reduce maintenance granted by a Family Court in a revision application without affording an opportunity of hearing to the party adversely affected by such reduction. It is a basic principle of natural justice — audi alteram partem — but the High Court ignored it.

Then came the wife's own revision. On 8 April 2022, the High Court dismissed Criminal Revision No. 260 of 2022. This time, the court did not even issue notice to the husband. Instead, the State of Uttar Pradesh's counsel appeared and opposed the revision. The High Court, relying on the State's opposition, dismissed the wife's claim for higher maintenance without ever hearing the other side.

That is the second ratio: a revision application challenging a maintenance order cannot be dismissed without issuing notice to the necessary opposite party — the husband. The State cannot substitute for the absent private respondent in opposing such an application.

The State that took sides

This is where the case takes a turn that the Supreme Court found "very strange." The State of Uttar Pradesh did not just appear in court to assist. It actively opposed the wife's claims. The State filed a counter-affidavit through the Superintendent of Police, arguing against the maintenance. The State's counsel argued before the High Court that the revision should be dismissed.

Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan were blunt. The State's counsel in maintenance proceedings is duty-bound to act as an officer of the Court and assist in arriving at a correct conclusion — not to champion the cause of one private party against another. The State had no business taking the husband's side.

The Court observed: "The State of UP has filed a counter-affidavit through the Superintendent of Police opposing the claim of the appellants. The approach of the State in taking the side of the husband is very strange."

This is the third ratio, and perhaps the most important for practitioners: the State's role in maintenance proceedings is neutral. It is not a party to the dispute between husband and wife. Its counsel is there to assist the court, not to oppose the wife's claim.

What the Supreme Court did

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part. Both impugned orders — the 26 August 2021 order reducing maintenance and the 8 April 2022 order dismissing the wife's revision — were set aside. Both revision applications were restored to the file of the Allahabad High Court. The original Family Court order dated 20 March 2021, granting Rs. 12,000 per month, was restored and will remain in force until the High Court decides the revisions afresh.

The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Allahabad High Court to list the revisions on 11 March 2024, with notice to all parties. The appellants — Asiya Khan and her daughter — were given liberty to seek directions regarding arrears and current maintenance from the High Court.

And then came a direction that speaks volumes about the State's conduct: a copy of the order was to be forwarded to the Secretaries of the Home Department and the Law Department of Uttar Pradesh. The Court also directed that the State Government shall not blame or penalise the advocates who represented it before the Supreme Court — a protective observation that suggests the Court anticipated administrative fallout for the lawyers who were simply following instructions.

The doctrine that mattered: natural justice in revision proceedings

This judgment does not break new ground on the law of maintenance. Section 125 CrPC remains what it always was. The doctrine here is procedural, not substantive. It is about how revisions must be heard.

The first principle is that a revision that reduces maintenance cannot be decided without hearing the person who will lose money. That is obvious, but the High Court forgot it.

The second principle is that a revision cannot be dismissed without notice to the opposite party. The State cannot fill the gap. If the husband does not appear, the court cannot rely on the State's counsel to argue against the wife. The State is not a litigant in a maintenance dispute.

The third principle is about the role of State counsel. They are officers of the court. Their job is to assist the court in reaching a correct conclusion, not to advocate for one private party against another. Filing a counter-affidavit through the Superintendent of Police to oppose a wife's maintenance claim is a gross abuse of the State's position.

THE PLAY: If you are representing a wife or child in a maintenance revision, and the State counsel opposes your client's claim, cite Asiya Khan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. to argue that the State has no locus to oppose maintenance — its role is limited to assisting the court as a neutral officer.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates handling maintenance cases, this judgment is a procedural shield. If the High Court reduces maintenance without hearing your client, you now have a direct Supreme Court precedent to challenge that order. If the High Court dismisses your client's revision without notice to the husband, you can argue that the order is a nullity.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is different. This case is a reminder that procedural fairness is not a technicality — it is a constitutional right. When a court decides a matter without hearing one side, the decision is not just wrong; it is void. The same principle applies in commercial litigation, tax disputes, and regulatory proceedings. If an order is passed against you without notice, you have a strong ground to challenge it.

For the State of Uttar Pradesh, the message is clear: do not take sides in family disputes. The State is not the husband's lawyer. Filing a counter-affidavit through the police to oppose a woman's maintenance claim is not just improper — it is "very strange."

The bottom line

If a court passes an order affecting your rights without hearing you, that order is unsustainable — and the Supreme Court will set it aside, even if it means restoring a maintenance order that the High Court had already reduced.