Anis Kumar Babbar v. State of U.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Aug 2025
- Bench
- SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA
- Neutral citation
- 2025:AHC:131982
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of at the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 52 of 2019 (Smt. Arti and others vs. Anis Kumar Babar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kakdev, District Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is second wife of the revisionist and living apart from him without any sufficient cause and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 09.05.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 7,500/- per month in favour of wife from the date of application. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the amount fixed by the learned trial court is disproportionate to the income of the husband and the amount is beyond the paying capacity.
It is further submitted that the monthly income of the revisionist is Rs. 17,000/- to 20,000/- per month out of which, he has to make payment of house rent to the tune of Rs. 3,200/- per month and in view of aforesaid income, the amount awarded by learned trial court as maintenance for Rs. 7,500/- is excessive and, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and to reduce the amount so fixed by learned trial court and also divide the amount of arrears into easy installments for convenience to pay. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that admittedly, opposite party no. 2 is second wife of the revisionist, who is living apart from him. There is allegation of misbehaviour and harassment against the revisionist by opposite party no.
Operative part
2 and for that reason, she is living separate from him and filed the present application before learned trial court. The revisionist being husband is under legal obligation to maintain his wife, who is living separate from him due to neglect. So far as, the income of revisionist is concerned, it has been assessed by learned trial court on the basis of Income Tax Return filed by him for the assessment years 2018-2023 and the average income of the revisionist was found to be Rs. 30,000/- per month, out of which, Rs. 7,500/- has been fixed as amount of maintenance which cannot be said to be more than 25% and it is in conformity with the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court and it does not warrant interference by this Court. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance from the date of application to the date of order is concerned, it may be divided into equal 24 monthly installments, those will be paid with current amount of maintenance month to month. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of at the admission stage. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 sailesh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of at the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 05 Aug 2025. The bench was SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.