Lalit Bansal State of U.P. and Another v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Adesh Kumar, G.A

1.Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the revisionist, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 169 of 2022 (CNR No. UPGB020005912022) titled Smt. Shashi Tomar Versus Lalit Bansal, under Section 125 Cr. P.C.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife who is living separate from him and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 17.01.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of application. He further submits that the revisionist is an unemployed person and practicing as Junior Advocate and makes earning Rs. 2500/- per month. He also submits that he has six bigha agricultural land and four shops in district Ghaziabad and from all the sources, he makes earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned trial court has fixed the amount without considering the source of income of the revisionist and without proper assessment of the property. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court is disproportionate to his income, excessive, 2 CRLR No. 1071 of 2025 and beyond paying capacity of the revisionist. He also submits that the opposite party no.2 is M.A. Ph.D and she has efficiency to make earning for her livelihood, even though, she has said herself to be un-employed and have no source of income. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance erroneously, therefore, request to reduce the amount and set aside the order passed by learned trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no.2, was legally wedded to the revisionist in the year 2009. Thereafter, she was misbehaved and subjected to harassment in relation to demand of dowry that was the reason, she was compelled to live separate from the revisionist from the year 2010. She also contended that though, she is highly qualified as M.A. Ph.D, but is unemployed and has no source of income, as she depends on her relatives and her maika. The father of the revisionist was M.L.A. for three times and the revisionist himself owns agricultural land and has also four shops in district Ghaziabad and he makes handsome income from the shops and agriculture land. In addition to this he is practicing as an advocate and makes income. During the cross-examination before the learned trial court, the revisionist himself admitted that he has six bigha agricultural land, which is in his own possession and also the fact that he operates Stadium, though he has stated that said stadium belongs to his brother and uncle. He also admitted that he is in politics and contested the election of Zila Panchayat in the year 2021 and he is President of Other Backward Class Wing in District Ghaziabad. He has entered into second marriage during life time of the opposite party no.2, regarding which, the opposite party no.2 has lodged a case as Case Crime No. 434 of 2021, under Sections 494, 323, 506 I.P.C. on 12.04.2021 in which after investigation, charge sheet has already been filed by the police, though the revisionist has denied the fact before the learned trial court. Since the revisionist has concealed the actual income and did not disclose in the affidavit regarding assets and liabilities and during the cross examination before the learned trial court, therefore, learned trial court has assessed his income about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month on the basis of agricultural land, shops and other property and also income from his legal profession and fixed the amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month as the amount of maintenance, which cannot be said to be erroneous and excessive. 3 CRLR No. 1071 of 2025

6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 17.01.2025, it appears that the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist both were married in the year 2009 and now wife is living separate from him and lives in her maika due to his neglect and the revisionist himself has entered into second marriage regarding which, the opposite party no.2 has lodged a case being Crime No. 434 of 2021, under Sections 494, 323, 506 I.P.C. on 12.04.2021, in which after investigation charge sheet has also been filed by the police. The opposite party no.2 though is well qualified having M.A.Ph.D degree, but has no any source of income and is still un-employed, therefore, there is sufficient reason for the wife to live separate from the revisionist and she is entitled for maintenance from the husband, who is able bodied person having sufficient means to maintain his wife. On the other hand, the revisionist practices as an advocate in Ghaziabad and makes income. He has four shops in the city of Ghaziabad as said by the revisionist but the amount of rent @1000/- per shop total Rs. 4000/- is not acceptable at any rate. He has also admitted that he has six bigha agricultural land in his name, from which, income Rs. 4000/- per bigha (total Rs. 24,000/-) is also not acceptable as real income. He also stated himself to be political person and also contested the election of Zila Panchayat and holds the post of President of Other Backward Class Wing in district Ghaziabad. His father was also M.L.A. for two times. When all these things are taken into account, it appears that status of the revisionist is high and his income as assessed by the learned trial court Rs. 1,00,000/- per month is acceptable. The amount of maintenance for wife is to be fixed according to the status of husband and wife. In view of high status of both the parties, the amount of maintenance may be fixed to the extent of 25% of total income of the husband that is Rs. 25,000/- per month. The learned trial court has fixed the amount Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance that is more than 25% of the net income of the husband and not to the tune of observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance Rs. 30,000/- being in excess and not in proportion to the income of the husband and the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it is liable to be reduced. Thus the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- on the place of 4 CRLR No. 1071 of 2025 Rs. 30,000/- payable month to month from the date of application.

7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed. September 25, 2025 T.S. (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1.Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the revisionist, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 169 of 2022 (CNR No. UPGB020005912022) titled Smt. Shashi Tomar Versus Lalit Bansal, under Section 125 Cr. P.C.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife who is living separate from him and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 17.01.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of application. He further submits that the revisionist is an unemployed person and practicing as Junior Advocate and makes earning Rs. 2500/- per month. He also submits that he has six bigha agricultural land and four shops in district Ghaziabad and from all the sources, he makes earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned trial court has fixed the amount without considering the source of income of the revisionist and without proper assessment of the property. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court is disproportionate to his income, excessive, 2 CRLR No. 1071 of 2025 and beyond paying capacity of the revisionist. He also submits that the opposite party no.2 is M.A. Ph.D and she has efficiency to make earning for her livelihood, even though, she has said herself to be un-employed and have no source of income. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance erroneously, therefore, request to reduce the amount and set aside the order passed by learned trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no.2, was legally wedded to the revisionist in the year 2009. Thereafter, she was misbehaved and subjected to harassment in relation to demand of dowry that was the reason, she was compelled to live separate from the revisionist from the year 2010. She also contended that though, she is highly qualified as M.A. Ph.D, but is unemployed and has no source of income, as she depends on her relatives and her maika. The father of the revisionist was M.L.A. for three times and the revisionist himself owns agricultural land and has also four shops in district Ghaziabad and he makes handsome income from the shops and agriculture land. In addition to this he is practicing as an advocate and makes income. During the cross-examination before the learned trial court, the revisionist himself admitted that he has six bigha agricultural land, which is in his own possession and also the fact that he operates Stadium, though he has stated that said stadium belongs to his brother and uncle. He also admitted that he is in politics and contested the election of Zila Panchayat in the year 2021 and he is President of Other Backward Class Wing in District Ghaziabad. He has entered into second marriage during life time of the opposite party no.2, regarding which, the opposite party no.2 has lodged a case as Case Crime No. 434 of 2021, under Sections 494, 323, 506 I.P.C. on 12.04.2021 in which after investigation, charge sheet has already been filed by the police, though the revisionist has denied the fact before the learned trial court. Since the revisionist has concealed the actual income and did not disclose in the affidavit regarding assets and liabilities and during the cross examination before the learned trial court, therefore, learned trial court has assessed his income about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month on the basis of agricultural land, shops and other property and also income from his legal profession and fixed the amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month as the amount of maintenance, which cannot be said to be erroneous and excessive. 3 CRLR No. 1071 of 2025

6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 17.01.2025, it appears that the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist both were married in the year 2009 and now wife is living separate from him and lives in her maika due to his neglect and the revisionist himself has entered into second marriage regarding which, the opposite party no.2 has lodged a case being Crime No. 434 of 2021, under Sections 494, 323, 506 I.P.C. on 12.04.2021, in which after investigation charge sheet has also been filed by the police. The opposite party no.2 though is well qualified having M.A.Ph.D degree, but has no any source of income and is still un-employed, therefore, there is sufficient reason for the wife to live separate from the revisionist and she is entitled for maintenance from the husband, who is able bodied person having sufficient means to maintain his wife. On the other hand, the revisionist practices as an advocate in Ghaziabad and makes income. He has four shops in the city of Ghaziabad as said by the revisionist but the amount of rent @1000/- per shop total Rs. 4000/- is not acceptable at any rate. He has also admitted that he has six bigha agricultural land in his name, from which, income Rs. 4000/- per bigha (total Rs. 24,000/-) is also not acceptable as real income. He also stated himself to be political person and also contested the election of Zila Panchayat and holds the post of President of Other Backward Class Wing in district Ghaziabad. His father was also M.L.A. for two times. When all these things are taken into account, it appears that status of the revisionist is high and his income as assessed by the learned trial court Rs. 1,00,000/- per month is acceptable. The amount of maintenance for wife is to be fixed according to the status of husband and wife. In view of high status of both the parties, the amount of maintenance may be fixed to the extent of 25% of total income of the husband that is Rs. 25,000/- per month. The learned trial court has fixed the amount Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance that is more than 25% of the net income of the husband and not to the tune of observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance Rs. 30,000/- being in excess and not in proportion to the income of the husband and the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it is liable to be reduced. Thus the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- on the place of 4 CRLR No. 1071 of 2025 Rs. 30,000/- payable month to month from the date of application.

7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed. September 25, 2025 T.S. (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad