High Court

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with prayer to set aside the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, in Case No. 1239 of 2020 (Smt. Anjali Vs. Mukul Chauhan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no. 2 is a married wife of the revisionist and her marriage was performed in the year 2019, thereafter opposite party no. 2 started mis-behaving with his family members. Since, revisionist is working in C.R.P.F. and he has to live at borders of the country where family is not allowed, that is the reason, revisionist was unable to keep his wife with him at the place of his posting. He further submits that she made false allegations against father and brother of the revisionist and also made false statements regarding molestation, rape and demand of dowry. Neither any dowry demand was made by the revisionist or his family members from opposite party no. 2 nor she was molested or raped. He also submitted that he is ready and willing to keep opposite party no. 2 with him but she herself is not willing to live with him. The revisionist has filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was allowed even though she did not comply the order passed by learned court concerned. She is an educated lady and she has capacity to make income by sewing and by giving tuition to children. It is further submitted that learned trial court did not consider all these facts while deciding the application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and passed the order dated 07.12.2023 and fix Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance for opposite party no. 2, which is excessive and disproportionate, therefore he requests to set aside the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the court below. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer and contended that after marriage of opposite party no. 2, she was living as his wife in her matrimonial house. When the revisionist was working in C.R.P.F. at his place of posting, in the meantime his family members mis-behaved with opposite party no. 2, and she made complaint to the revisionist for the same on his returning. He also beat her. In this way, he subjected her to tolerate the ill-treatment of his family members including her father-in-law. This was the reason she has gone to her parental house and started living there under compulsion. The revisionist has never given any amount to her for her daily expenses and maintenance, though she is living apart from him from the year 2020. In this way, it cannot be said that she is living separately from her husband without any sufficient cause. Though, revisionist has stated that she is well educated and can earn money by sewing and by giving tuition, but there is nothing on record to show that she is earning money by sewing and by giving tuition to children. The revisionist is working in C.R.P.F. and has not disclosed his income before learned trial court but his salary slip paper no. 22 Ga/1 was filed by opposite party no. 2 showing gross pay of Rs. 46,073/- and net pay of Rs. 41,701/-. The revisionist himself filed his salary slip paper no. 25 Ga/1 showing his gross income of Rs. 42,049/- and net pay of Rs. 29,889/-. Revisionist has not filed his latest salary slip before the trial court only to deprive the opposite party no. 2 from proper amount to be given as maintenance. Learned trial court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and also salary received by the revisionist, and fixed the maintenance amount Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2, which is not excessive. He also submits that amount of maintenance may extend upto 25 percent of salary of husband as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the trial court, it appears that revisionist is working in C.R.P.F. and lives at borders and his marriage was performed with the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2019 and she was living at her matrimonial house and she was allegedly maltreated by his family members. She has also made complaint in this regard to the revisionist but no attention was given by the revisionist in this regard, that was the reason she started living at her parental house from the year 2020. Therefore, there are sufficient ground for the wife to live separate from her husband. There is nothing on record to show that she has sufficient means to maintain herself by sewing or by giving tuition. The revisionist is working in C.R.P.F. and he has not filed his latest salary slip but his salary slip has been filed by opposite party no.2, which shows his gross income of Rs. 46,073/- and net pay of Rs. 41,701/-. In view of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (Supra), 25% of the net salary of husband may be fixed as the amount of maintenance in favour of wife. In this regard, 25% of Rs. 41,701/- becomes about Rs. 10,500/- when rounded of it becomes Rs. 11,000/-. This amount will be payable from the date of application. Thus the amount of maintenance Rs. 12,000/- per month is reduced to Rs. 11,000/- per month from the date of application. The amount already received by opposite party no. 2 as an interim maintenance or maintenance in the present case or in any other case, shall be subject to adjustment in the present amount of maintenance. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 VS

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with prayer to set aside the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, in Case No. 1239 of 2020 (Smt. Anjali Vs. Mukul Chauhan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no. 2 is a married wife of the revisionist and her marriage was performed in the year 2019, thereafter opposite party no. 2 started mis-behaving with his family members. Since, revisionist is working in C.R.P.F. and he has to live at borders of the country where family is not allowed, that is the reason, revisionist was unable to keep his wife with him at the place of his posting. He further submits that she made false allegations against father and brother of the revisionist and also made false statements regarding molestation, rape and demand of dowry. Neither any dowry demand was made by the revisionist or his family members from opposite party no. 2 nor she was molested or raped. He also submitted that he is ready and willing to keep opposite party no. 2 with him but she herself is not willing to live with him. The revisionist has filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was allowed even though she did not comply the order passed by learned court concerned. She is an educated lady and she has capacity to make income by sewing and by giving tuition to children. It is further submitted that learned trial court did not consider all these facts while deciding the application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and passed the order dated 07.12.2023 and fix Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance for opposite party no. 2, which is excessive and disproportionate, therefore he requests to set aside the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the court below. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer and contended that after marriage of opposite party no. 2, she was living as his wife in her matrimonial house. When the revisionist was working in C.R.P.F. at his place of posting, in the meantime his family members mis-behaved with opposite party no. 2, and she made complaint to the revisionist for the same on his returning. He also beat her. In this way, he subjected her to tolerate the ill-treatment of his family members including her father-in-law. This was the reason she has gone to her parental house and started living there under compulsion. The revisionist has never given any amount to her for her daily expenses and maintenance, though she is living apart from him from the year 2020. In this way, it cannot be said that she is living separately from her husband without any sufficient cause. Though, revisionist has stated that she is well educated and can earn money by sewing and by giving tuition, but there is nothing on record to show that she is earning money by sewing and by giving tuition to children. The revisionist is working in C.R.P.F. and has not disclosed his income before learned trial court but his salary slip paper no. 22 Ga/1 was filed by opposite party no. 2 showing gross pay of Rs. 46,073/- and net pay of Rs. 41,701/-. The revisionist himself filed his salary slip paper no. 25 Ga/1 showing his gross income of Rs. 42,049/- and net pay of Rs. 29,889/-. Revisionist has not filed his latest salary slip before the trial court only to deprive the opposite party no. 2 from proper amount to be given as maintenance. Learned trial court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and also salary received by the revisionist, and fixed the maintenance amount Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2, which is not excessive. He also submits that amount of maintenance may extend upto 25 percent of salary of husband as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the trial court, it appears that revisionist is working in C.R.P.F. and lives at borders and his marriage was performed with the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2019 and she was living at her matrimonial house and she was allegedly maltreated by his family members. She has also made complaint in this regard to the revisionist but no attention was given by the revisionist in this regard, that was the reason she started living at her parental house from the year 2020. Therefore, there are sufficient ground for the wife to live separate from her husband. There is nothing on record to show that she has sufficient means to maintain herself by sewing or by giving tuition. The revisionist is working in C.R.P.F. and he has not filed his latest salary slip but his salary slip has been filed by opposite party no.2, which shows his gross income of Rs. 46,073/- and net pay of Rs. 41,701/-. In view of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (Supra), 25% of the net salary of husband may be fixed as the amount of maintenance in favour of wife. In this regard, 25% of Rs. 41,701/- becomes about Rs. 10,500/- when rounded of it becomes Rs. 11,000/-. This amount will be payable from the date of application. Thus the amount of maintenance Rs. 12,000/- per month is reduced to Rs. 11,000/- per month from the date of application. The amount already received by opposite party no. 2 as an interim maintenance or maintenance in the present case or in any other case, shall be subject to adjustment in the present amount of maintenance. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 VS