High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1731 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 825 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Revisionist :- Rajeev Chaddha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bindu Kumari,G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 7.1.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 438 of 2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. P.S. Sector 24 Noida whereby revisionist (husband) is directed to pay 30,000/- per month to his wife (respondent no. 2) from the date of application dated 26.11.2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that he has retired as a Bank Manager in the year 2021. The Marriage between the revisionist and respondent no. 2 was solemnized in the year 1996 earlier of filing of maintenance case. It was second marriage of both the spouse. The parties were separated due to matrimonial discord which occurred subsequently. Parties are blessed with two children one son and one daughter and both of them are presently major, although they are not married. The daughter was engaged in some private job also. It is next contended that this court vide interim order dated 22.5.2023 in present criminal revision directed the revisionist to pays Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance during pendency of the present revision. 4. It is next submitted that it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 and her children are residing in a flat purchased by revisionist by his own income. The revisionist is presently residing with his mother in old house. His mother is undergoing treatment of serious aliment of Cancer and a substantial sum of his pension and funds are being spent in treatment of his mother. Due to family obligations and limited economic resources, he is not in a position to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife who is respondent no. 2 in present revision. It is also contended that the matter has also been referred to High Court Medication Center but mediation failed and no amicable settlement could be reached between the parties. 5. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned trial court has only placed reliance on pleadings and statement of respondent no. 2 in proceedings before court below and without considering the pleadings and evidence of the revisionist, came to the conclusion that revisionist is a man of sufficient economic resources and awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance to the wife of the revisionist. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that learned trial court has elaborately considered various economic resources of the revisionist. It is next submitted that although revisionist is a pensioner but he has received huge some of money from the house sold by his mother as his share and apart from that he has huge sum of money received as his retiral benefit. Revisionist is man of sufficient resources and is avoiding his obligations to maintain his wife and unmarried children. Both the children of opposite party no. 2 are unemployed and they are still dependent on opposite party no. 2 for their commercial needs. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgement of this Court passed in Veena Panda @ Seema Panda vs. Devendra Kumar Panda 2006(6) ADJ 208 wherein this court observed in paragraph no. 5 as under:- "5. The gamut of all the aforesaid case laws is that as long as matrimonial ties subsists between the parties, the wife is entitled to live in the matrimonial house or in a separate building. The wife should not be relegated to a lower standard of living than that the husband enjoys. She should be given maintenance according to status of her husband. While considering the question of ''maintenance pendente lite' under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act its definition as given in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act should be adopted and some significant points should necessarily be taken into account such as (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant towards food, clothing, shelter and medical attendance etc., (iii) income of the respondent, (iv) income, if any, of the claimant, (v) number of persons the respondent is obliged to maintain. As regards quantum of maintenance it may be from 1/3rd to 50% of the income of the respondent but no rigid formula can be fixed. It may differ from case to case. The contributions towards General Provident Fund and payment towards instalments of loan etc. should not be permitted to be deducted to work out the carry home salary. The maintenance should not be refused on the ground that the wife can pull on for some time by selling her ornaments etc." 8. On perusal of material on record it appears that marriage of the revisionist was performed with respondent no. 2 according to Hindu rites and rituals on 3.12.1996 at the ancestral place of respondent no. 2 and couple were blessed with one daughter in the year 1997 and a son was born out of their wedlock on 19.3.2001. The children born out of wedlock of the spouse have now become major. The respondent no. 2 has made allegation against revisionist that he used to ill-treat, harass and torture her on one or other pretext. The revisionist left his wife and children in house No. B- 33Nilgiri-1 Apartment, sector 34 Noida P.S. Sector 24 Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar. 9. According to the revisionist his wife and both children are highly qualified and they are employed in some private company and getting themselves maintain by their own income. He has also stated that flat in which her wife and children are residing, is purchased by him and this fact is not denied by respondents. 10. It is also submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionist that he is ready to keep respondent no. 2 but she is not ready to live with him on the other hand it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that although her children have become major yet they are not employed and they are still dependent on her for their necessary expenses. His daughter Yashvi Chaddha is unmarried and she is entitled to seek maintenance from her father till her marriage under section 125 Cr.P.C. It appears that matrimonial discord between the parties took place after their marriage. 11. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that he is pensioner and now his income has come down substantially and he is not in a position to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 who is wife. 12. Considering rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, their admissions, their pleadings and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order is exorbitant and it is difficult for revisionist to pay the same to the respondent no. 2 out of his pension. The amount awarded in the impugned order is liable to be reduced to some extent, therefore it is directed that the revisionist would pay respondent no. 2 maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of application to passing of impugned judgement dated 7.1.2023 and thereafter he will pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month till the same is modified by the some competent court. 13. The impugned order stand modified accordingly. The revision is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad