State of U.P. and Another v. Party

Case No. 762 of 2022 (CNR No. UPBU02001856-2022) (Smt. Shivani @ Shimla Vs. Arvind Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Bulandshar, whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application.

3. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no. 2 to the tune of total Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of filing of instant application is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist as he is working as salesman for selling food products of some companies and is getting Rs. 6,000/- per month. He next submits that on one hand, the trial court forms an opinion that even an unskilled labour can earn around Rs 400/- to 500/- per day by doing labour work and on the other hand, the trial court has only on surmises and conjectures, assumed that the revisionist, who is a salesman, can easily earn Rs 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month and on the basis of such wrong assumption, the trial court has awarded the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2, which is not correct in the eyes of law. 2 CRLR No. 633 of 2024

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is too excessive and exorbitant and is not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and awarding Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist is doing a job of salesman for selling some food products of various companies from which the revisionist obtains sufficient income i.e. Rs. 35,000/- per month, therefore, he is able to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no.2. he, however, admits that for establishing such income of the revisionist, no documentary evidence has been led before the trial court from any side.

7. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that it is an admitted case that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife.

9. So far as separate living of the opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist is concerned, the trial court has categorically recorded that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband at her parental house with sufficient cause. In the opinion of the Court, the finding returned by the trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, on the said issue is a categorical finding of fact. 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 3 CRLR No. 633 of 2024 finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

10. Qua the income of the opposite party no.2, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that there is nothing on record to establish that she is a working lady and she has any source of income in order to maintain herself. The trial court has also opined that opposite party no.2 has no source of income.

11. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court may record that there is no documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial that the revisionist is a salesman and is obtaining either Rs. 35,000/- per month (as per the averment made by opposite party no.2) or Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 20,500/- per month (as per the assumption of the trial court). In paragraph no.36 of the impugned judgment, which is at page no. 20 of the paper book, the trial court on one hand has opined that at present a labourer can earn Rs.400 to 500/- per day, whereas on the other hand, the trial court on the basis of assumption, surmises and conjectures, has assessed the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs. 20,000/- to 20,500/-. Such assumption as formed by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be accepted by this Court.

12. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a salesman and he earns only Rs. 6,000/- per month and in that regard he has brought on record the income certificate issued by the district authority of district Bulandshar dated 14th January, 2024 at page no. 102 of the paper book.

13. Since said certificate has not been examined by the trial court during the course of trial, the same cannot be entertained by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the said income certificate has not been issued by any agency of the concerned company for which he works as salesman due to which the authenticity of the same can be shown.

14. However, considering the fact that the revisionist himself has admitted before the trial court that he is working as salesman and he has also not claimed that he is physically deformed and also there is no documentary evidence available on record qua the exact monthly income of the revisionist, this Court treats the revisionist to be a labourer.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation. 4 CRLR No. 633 of 2024

16. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, if the revisionist, who is an able bodied person, is treated as a labourer at present, he would earn Rs. 600/- per day and his monthly income would be Rs. 18,000/- per month.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) 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.

18. Keeping in view the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 18,000/- per month would be Rs. 4,500/- per month. As such, Rs. 4,500/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no. 2 is just reasonable and realistic. Accordingly, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is reduced to Rs. 4,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) from Rs. 6,000/- per month and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of the instant application.

19. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 762 of 2022 (CNR No. UPBU02001856-2022) (Smt. Shivani @ Shimla Vs. Arvind Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Bulandshar is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. Since the revisionist has no regular source of income, it would be too harsh for him to pay arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in one stroke. This Court therefore, provides that the same shall be paid by the revisionist in 10 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 10th October, 2025.

20. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the court below shall be calculated on the basis of amount of maintenance allowance as fixed by this Court herein above and 5 CRLR No. 633 of 2024 after that if it is found that any amount has been paid in excess, the same shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid.

21. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

22. There shall be no order as to costs. October 7, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case No. 762 of 2022 (CNR No. UPBU02001856-2022) (Smt. Shivani @ Shimla Vs. Arvind Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Bulandshar, whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application.

3. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no. 2 to the tune of total Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of filing of instant application is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist as he is working as salesman for selling food products of some companies and is getting Rs. 6,000/- per month. He next submits that on one hand, the trial court forms an opinion that even an unskilled labour can earn around Rs 400/- to 500/- per day by doing labour work and on the other hand, the trial court has only on surmises and conjectures, assumed that the revisionist, who is a salesman, can easily earn Rs 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month and on the basis of such wrong assumption, the trial court has awarded the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2, which is not correct in the eyes of law. 2 CRLR No. 633 of 2024

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is too excessive and exorbitant and is not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and awarding Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist is doing a job of salesman for selling some food products of various companies from which the revisionist obtains sufficient income i.e. Rs. 35,000/- per month, therefore, he is able to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no.2. he, however, admits that for establishing such income of the revisionist, no documentary evidence has been led before the trial court from any side.

7. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that it is an admitted case that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife.

9. So far as separate living of the opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist is concerned, the trial court has categorically recorded that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband at her parental house with sufficient cause. In the opinion of the Court, the finding returned by the trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, on the said issue is a categorical finding of fact. 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 3 CRLR No. 633 of 2024 finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

10. Qua the income of the opposite party no.2, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that there is nothing on record to establish that she is a working lady and she has any source of income in order to maintain herself. The trial court has also opined that opposite party no.2 has no source of income.

11. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court may record that there is no documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial that the revisionist is a salesman and is obtaining either Rs. 35,000/- per month (as per the averment made by opposite party no.2) or Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 20,500/- per month (as per the assumption of the trial court). In paragraph no.36 of the impugned judgment, which is at page no. 20 of the paper book, the trial court on one hand has opined that at present a labourer can earn Rs.400 to 500/- per day, whereas on the other hand, the trial court on the basis of assumption, surmises and conjectures, has assessed the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs. 20,000/- to 20,500/-. Such assumption as formed by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be accepted by this Court.

12. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a salesman and he earns only Rs. 6,000/- per month and in that regard he has brought on record the income certificate issued by the district authority of district Bulandshar dated 14th January, 2024 at page no. 102 of the paper book.

13. Since said certificate has not been examined by the trial court during the course of trial, the same cannot be entertained by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the said income certificate has not been issued by any agency of the concerned company for which he works as salesman due to which the authenticity of the same can be shown.

14. However, considering the fact that the revisionist himself has admitted before the trial court that he is working as salesman and he has also not claimed that he is physically deformed and also there is no documentary evidence available on record qua the exact monthly income of the revisionist, this Court treats the revisionist to be a labourer.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation. 4 CRLR No. 633 of 2024

16. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, if the revisionist, who is an able bodied person, is treated as a labourer at present, he would earn Rs. 600/- per day and his monthly income would be Rs. 18,000/- per month.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) 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.

18. Keeping in view the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 18,000/- per month would be Rs. 4,500/- per month. As such, Rs. 4,500/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no. 2 is just reasonable and realistic. Accordingly, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is reduced to Rs. 4,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) from Rs. 6,000/- per month and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of the instant application.

19. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 762 of 2022 (CNR No. UPBU02001856-2022) (Smt. Shivani @ Shimla Vs. Arvind Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Bulandshar is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. Since the revisionist has no regular source of income, it would be too harsh for him to pay arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in one stroke. This Court therefore, provides that the same shall be paid by the revisionist in 10 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 10th October, 2025.

20. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the court below shall be calculated on the basis of amount of maintenance allowance as fixed by this Court herein above and 5 CRLR No. 633 of 2024 after that if it is found that any amount has been paid in excess, the same shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid.

21. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

22. There shall be no order as to costs. October 7, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad