Smt. Sarvari Begum Anr v. Mohd. Nijamuddin), under Section

: Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava : G.A., Pawan Giri, Shivam Verma Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pawan Giri, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Chandauli, in Case No. 153 of 2019 (Smt. Sarvari Begum & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Nijamuddin), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Mughalsarai, District- Chandauli whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month in total to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) from the date of application.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 10.10.2015 according to Islamic rites and rituals and out of their wedlock opposite party no.3 namely Afshin Jahara was born. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the allegation has been levelled against the revisionist in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is false and fabricated. The opposite party no. 2 is living separate from the revisionist without any reasonable cause. Thereafter, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that the court below without any assessment of the income of the revisionist has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month in total to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is a agricultural labour and having no permanent source of income, he has not in a position to pay the maintenance allowance as has 2 CRLR No. 1900 of 2024 been awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submits that he is still ready to take her back to her matrimonial home. Lastly, it is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is a post-graduate lady and working in a coaching centre as teacher from which she earns Rs. 10,000/- per month but all these factors were not taken into consideration by learned trial court while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the present revision.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that when the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 sufficient articles were given to the revisionist but the revisionist and his family members were not happy with the same and continuously demanded additional dowry. On account of these reasons, she was being tortured and compelled to live separately. It is next submitted that the trial court while deciding the issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 has recorded its categorically finding that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason as she has been tortured by her in-laws and also made some indecent activities with her as recorded by the trial court. It appears from the impugned judgment that the opposite party no.2 is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. It is next submitted that the revisionist is an able bodied person and it is his pious duty to maintain his wife. In Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arise. The amount awarded by learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 05.01.2024, The opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and from their wedlock one child opposite party no.3 was born. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the trial court court while deciding the issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 has recorded its categorically finding that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason as she has been tortured by her in-law and also made some indecent activities with her as recorded by the trial court. It appears from the impugned judgment that the revisionist is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist.

6. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, however, it is on record that the revisionist is ITI holder and previously he was working in private 3 CRLR No. 1900 of 2024 factories right now he unemployed and doing nothing. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, even the revisionist is assumed as skilled labourer, he can earn Rs.600/- per day, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per month and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury

7. The revisionist/husband is an able-bodied person and, therefore, he cannot shirk from his pious liability to maintain his wife and the maintenance awarded by the court below of Rs. 4000/- per month in total to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court.

8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed. September 17, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.)

: Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava : G.A., Pawan Giri, Shivam Verma Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pawan Giri, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Chandauli, in Case No. 153 of 2019 (Smt. Sarvari Begum & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Nijamuddin), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Mughalsarai, District- Chandauli whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month in total to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) from the date of application.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 10.10.2015 according to Islamic rites and rituals and out of their wedlock opposite party no.3 namely Afshin Jahara was born. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the allegation has been levelled against the revisionist in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is false and fabricated. The opposite party no. 2 is living separate from the revisionist without any reasonable cause. Thereafter, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that the court below without any assessment of the income of the revisionist has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month in total to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is a agricultural labour and having no permanent source of income, he has not in a position to pay the maintenance allowance as has 2 CRLR No. 1900 of 2024 been awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submits that he is still ready to take her back to her matrimonial home. Lastly, it is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is a post-graduate lady and working in a coaching centre as teacher from which she earns Rs. 10,000/- per month but all these factors were not taken into consideration by learned trial court while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the present revision.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that when the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 sufficient articles were given to the revisionist but the revisionist and his family members were not happy with the same and continuously demanded additional dowry. On account of these reasons, she was being tortured and compelled to live separately. It is next submitted that the trial court while deciding the issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 has recorded its categorically finding that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason as she has been tortured by her in-laws and also made some indecent activities with her as recorded by the trial court. It appears from the impugned judgment that the opposite party no.2 is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. It is next submitted that the revisionist is an able bodied person and it is his pious duty to maintain his wife. In Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arise. The amount awarded by learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 05.01.2024, The opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and from their wedlock one child opposite party no.3 was born. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the trial court court while deciding the issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 has recorded its categorically finding that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason as she has been tortured by her in-law and also made some indecent activities with her as recorded by the trial court. It appears from the impugned judgment that the revisionist is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist.

6. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, however, it is on record that the revisionist is ITI holder and previously he was working in private 3 CRLR No. 1900 of 2024 factories right now he unemployed and doing nothing. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, even the revisionist is assumed as skilled labourer, he can earn Rs.600/- per day, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per month and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury

7. The revisionist/husband is an able-bodied person and, therefore, he cannot shirk from his pious liability to maintain his wife and the maintenance awarded by the court below of Rs. 4000/- per month in total to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court.

8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed. September 17, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.)