High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ahmad Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vikas Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Case No.341 of 2019 (Smt. Dropati vs. Dinesh Pal) P.S. Sirauli, District Bareilly under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist filed has been dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is an illiterate woman and the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist on 30.05.2012. The opposite party no.2 and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they demanded additional dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 and his family members committed maar-peet with her. The opposite party no.2 is a well bodied person who is labourer and earns at least Rs.500/- per day, whereas the revisionist has no source of income so that she may maintain herself. It is further submitted that the lower court has wrongly decided issue no.2 in which it is stated that the revisionist is living separately without any sufficient reason. It is also submitted that while passing the impugned judgment, the lower court has come to the conclusion that the revisionist is also doing labour work in Manrega, which is only on presumption. The reason and finding recorded by the court below under the impugned judgment is totally against the law in rejecting the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist. Hence the present criminal revision.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 opposed the submissions made by the revisionist and stated 2 CRLR No. 1209 of 2024 that the revisionist is voluntarily separated from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 and his family members never demanded any dowry nor they committed maar-peet upon her.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the relation between the parties as husband and wife. It also appears that the court below has rejected the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the revisionist is living separately without any reason from her husband while deciding the issue no.2. It appears from the statement of the revisionist that the opposite party no.2 was not happy with the articles given by the revisionist and her family members at the time of marriage in the form of dowry and they used to demand additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. On account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 used to commit maar-peet upon her. It is also mentioned in the impugned judgment that opposite party no.2 broke the bone of right hand of the revisionist and she had also sustained injury in her left eye. It also transpires from paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment that after a long period of their marriage, no child has born out from their aforesaid wedlock and when opposite party no.2 was medically examined, his sperm count was not found sufficient and just thereafter the revisionist /wife is living separately from opposite party no.2. The findings of the trial court are not correct in the light of the above facts and sufficient reasons are available to the revisionist to live separately from the opposite party no.2

6. So far as the income of opposite party no.2 is concerned, this Court may record that it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is a well bodied person and even if it is presumed that at the present time, he works as a labourer, he would earn at least Rs. 500/- a day, meaning thereby that his income would be Rs. 15000/- per month.

8. Keeping in mind the fact that in the present hard days, when inflation is very high, food and household items are so expensive and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, wherein it has been observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the under the guidelines in the case of Rajnish vs. Neha (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist is entitled to Rs. 3,750/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of application 3 CRLR No. 1209 of 2024 i.e. 01.03.2019.

10. Consequently, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 is set aside.

11. However, Since the opposite party no.2 is a labourer and the amount of arrears from the date of filing of application is so excessive in one stroke to be paid by him to the revisionist, it is provided that the opposite party no.2 shall pay the arrears of maintenance allowance to the revisionist in 24 equal installments. The first installment shall commence from September, 2025. The opposite party no.2 shall also pay the amount of monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3750/- to the revisionist regularly. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ahmad Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vikas Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Case No.341 of 2019 (Smt. Dropati vs. Dinesh Pal) P.S. Sirauli, District Bareilly under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist filed has been dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is an illiterate woman and the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist on 30.05.2012. The opposite party no.2 and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they demanded additional dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 and his family members committed maar-peet with her. The opposite party no.2 is a well bodied person who is labourer and earns at least Rs.500/- per day, whereas the revisionist has no source of income so that she may maintain herself. It is further submitted that the lower court has wrongly decided issue no.2 in which it is stated that the revisionist is living separately without any sufficient reason. It is also submitted that while passing the impugned judgment, the lower court has come to the conclusion that the revisionist is also doing labour work in Manrega, which is only on presumption. The reason and finding recorded by the court below under the impugned judgment is totally against the law in rejecting the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist. Hence the present criminal revision.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 opposed the submissions made by the revisionist and stated 2 CRLR No. 1209 of 2024 that the revisionist is voluntarily separated from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 and his family members never demanded any dowry nor they committed maar-peet upon her.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the relation between the parties as husband and wife. It also appears that the court below has rejected the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the revisionist is living separately without any reason from her husband while deciding the issue no.2. It appears from the statement of the revisionist that the opposite party no.2 was not happy with the articles given by the revisionist and her family members at the time of marriage in the form of dowry and they used to demand additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. On account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, opposite party no.2 used to commit maar-peet upon her. It is also mentioned in the impugned judgment that opposite party no.2 broke the bone of right hand of the revisionist and she had also sustained injury in her left eye. It also transpires from paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment that after a long period of their marriage, no child has born out from their aforesaid wedlock and when opposite party no.2 was medically examined, his sperm count was not found sufficient and just thereafter the revisionist /wife is living separately from opposite party no.2. The findings of the trial court are not correct in the light of the above facts and sufficient reasons are available to the revisionist to live separately from the opposite party no.2

6. So far as the income of opposite party no.2 is concerned, this Court may record that it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is a well bodied person and even if it is presumed that at the present time, he works as a labourer, he would earn at least Rs. 500/- a day, meaning thereby that his income would be Rs. 15000/- per month.

8. Keeping in mind the fact that in the present hard days, when inflation is very high, food and household items are so expensive and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, wherein it has been observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the under the guidelines in the case of Rajnish vs. Neha (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist is entitled to Rs. 3,750/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of application 3 CRLR No. 1209 of 2024 i.e. 01.03.2019.

10. Consequently, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 is set aside.

11. However, Since the opposite party no.2 is a labourer and the amount of arrears from the date of filing of application is so excessive in one stroke to be paid by him to the revisionist, it is provided that the opposite party no.2 shall pay the arrears of maintenance allowance to the revisionist in 24 equal installments. The first installment shall commence from September, 2025. The opposite party no.2 shall also pay the amount of monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3750/- to the revisionist regularly. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad