State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Case is called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. are present. However, no one appears for opposite party no.2.

2. Heard Mr. Abhinab Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

3. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26th June, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 115 of 2022 (Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs. Satyapal Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application of opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of application and Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized 40 years ago and from the aforesaid wedlock, two sons were born. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband since 30 years along with her both sons. It is then submitted that the revisionist is now 70 years old and unemployed and also he has no source of income to maintain opposite party no.2. It is also contended that the revisionist is a Hindu Priest and he earns some with great difficulty by performing "Puja" in different houses for his livelihood. He, therefore, submits that looking to the fact that the revisionist has no specific source of income, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the court below in favour of opposite party no.2 is excessive and exorbitant. Since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by not only the court below but also by the 2 CRLR No. 5151 of 2024 appellate court. As such, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the court below as well as by the appellate court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned A.G.A. further submits that it is admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and he is under legal obligation to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no.2. He further submits that keeping in mind the current inflation, the amount of interim maintenance allowance as awarded by the court below cannot be said to be excessive but is in lower side. He, therefore, submits that since the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, this Court finds that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist, who is an old lady aged about 55 to 60 years and the same has also not been disputed on behalf of the revisionist, hence the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious responsibility to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no.2.

7. So far as separate living of opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that on the basis of oral evidence, the trial court in paragraph 16 of its judgment has categorically recorded that opposite party no.2 has sufficient cause to live separately from her husband i.e. revisionist. Such categorical finding recorded by the trial court cannot be turned down by this Court unless this Court finds that the same is totally perverse in the eyes of law.

8. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re- appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

9. Qua the income of opposite party no.2, this Court finds that there is nothing on record to establish that opposite party no.2 who is an old lady has any source of income to maintain herself. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial to the woman, hence it was enacted for the protection of every women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. Thus, it is 3 CRLR No. 5151 of 2024 legal and pious duty of the revisionist to maintain her wife i.e. opposite party no.2.

10. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that the revisionist has himself admitted before the trial court that he is a Hindu priest and somehow he earns some money for his livelihood by performing "Pooja" in different homes. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and records, it is appears that on one hand, the revisionist claimed that he is 70 years old and has no source of income and by performing "Pooja" in different houses, somehow he earns some money but on the other-hand, he has adopted a 13 years old minor girl, who is said to be daughter of his brother-in- law. In that situation it is impossible to believe that on one hand the revisionist has money for livelihood and education of an adopted daughter but he has no money for his legally wedded wife to maintain her.

11. Apart from above, this Court is of the opinion that even if it is presumed that the revisionist is a Hindu priest and he performs "Pooja" in different houses, he would still be earning Rs. 400/- per day in today's time, meaning thereby he would earn Rs. 12,000/- in a month.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.

13. This Court may record that though the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2 is exact amount of 25% of the net income of the revisionist as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras). As such, this Court is of the considered view that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month is realistic, justify and reasonable.

14. Consequently, this Court holds that the present criminal revision has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. There shall be no orders as to costs. September 10, 2025 Sushil/- 4 CRLR No. 5151 of 2024 (Madan Pal Singh,J.)

1. Case is called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. are present. However, no one appears for opposite party no.2.

2. Heard Mr. Abhinab Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

3. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26th June, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 115 of 2022 (Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs. Satyapal Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application of opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of application and Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized 40 years ago and from the aforesaid wedlock, two sons were born. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband since 30 years along with her both sons. It is then submitted that the revisionist is now 70 years old and unemployed and also he has no source of income to maintain opposite party no.2. It is also contended that the revisionist is a Hindu Priest and he earns some with great difficulty by performing "Puja" in different houses for his livelihood. He, therefore, submits that looking to the fact that the revisionist has no specific source of income, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the court below in favour of opposite party no.2 is excessive and exorbitant. Since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by not only the court below but also by the 2 CRLR No. 5151 of 2024 appellate court. As such, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the court below as well as by the appellate court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned A.G.A. further submits that it is admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and he is under legal obligation to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no.2. He further submits that keeping in mind the current inflation, the amount of interim maintenance allowance as awarded by the court below cannot be said to be excessive but is in lower side. He, therefore, submits that since the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, this Court finds that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist, who is an old lady aged about 55 to 60 years and the same has also not been disputed on behalf of the revisionist, hence the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious responsibility to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no.2.

7. So far as separate living of opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that on the basis of oral evidence, the trial court in paragraph 16 of its judgment has categorically recorded that opposite party no.2 has sufficient cause to live separately from her husband i.e. revisionist. Such categorical finding recorded by the trial court cannot be turned down by this Court unless this Court finds that the same is totally perverse in the eyes of law.

8. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re- appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

9. Qua the income of opposite party no.2, this Court finds that there is nothing on record to establish that opposite party no.2 who is an old lady has any source of income to maintain herself. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial to the woman, hence it was enacted for the protection of every women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. Thus, it is 3 CRLR No. 5151 of 2024 legal and pious duty of the revisionist to maintain her wife i.e. opposite party no.2.

10. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that the revisionist has himself admitted before the trial court that he is a Hindu priest and somehow he earns some money for his livelihood by performing "Pooja" in different homes. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and records, it is appears that on one hand, the revisionist claimed that he is 70 years old and has no source of income and by performing "Pooja" in different houses, somehow he earns some money but on the other-hand, he has adopted a 13 years old minor girl, who is said to be daughter of his brother-in- law. In that situation it is impossible to believe that on one hand the revisionist has money for livelihood and education of an adopted daughter but he has no money for his legally wedded wife to maintain her.

11. Apart from above, this Court is of the opinion that even if it is presumed that the revisionist is a Hindu priest and he performs "Pooja" in different houses, he would still be earning Rs. 400/- per day in today's time, meaning thereby he would earn Rs. 12,000/- in a month.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.

13. This Court may record that though the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2 is exact amount of 25% of the net income of the revisionist as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras). As such, this Court is of the considered view that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month is realistic, justify and reasonable.

14. Consequently, this Court holds that the present criminal revision has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. There shall be no orders as to costs. September 10, 2025 Sushil/- 4 CRLR No. 5151 of 2024 (Madan Pal Singh,J.)