High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 8th February, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Agra in Maintenance Case No. 954 of 2017 (Smt. Ambika Singh Vs. Utkarsh Rana), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Khandoli, District-Agra, whereby the trial court has partly allowed the application filed by opposite party no.2 and directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance on 10th day of each calendar month from the date of filing application.

3. Factual matrix in short is that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 10th February, 2016 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. After some time of marriage, relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Consequently, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 29th February, 2016, which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 954 of 2017 (Smt. Ambika Singh Vs. Utkarsh Rana), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Khandoli, District-Agra. After objection was filed by the revisionist, evidence was led and also after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court has passed by the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2024 partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2. Hence the present criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist without any sufficient cause from 29th February, 2016, as no cruelty or harassment had ever been made by the revisionist. The court below in the judgment impugned has also not recorded any finding as to what kind of harassment has been made with opposite party no.2. On the contrary the divorce was granted to the revisionist by the Family Court vide order dated 10th August, 2023 on the ground of cruelty, caused by opposite party no.2. Since opposite party no.2 has failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment because of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and also she is living separately, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. It is further contended that the revisionist is unemployed and he has no source of income. Earlier he was working in Tykisa Company, Manesar Gurgaon and was getting salary to the tune of Rs. 34,634/- but after the pronouncement of impugned judgment, he was not working in the aforesaid company. It is then submitted that the trial court has not considered the testimony of the witnesses and material evidence available on record while passing the impugned judgment, which is only based on surmises, conjectures and presumption. It is further contended that opposite party no.2 is a highly qualified lady. She has possessed degrees of M.A. and M.Ed. and also she was teaching in a private school. As such, she is capable. The maintenance allowance cannot be granted to a lady who is capable to maintain herself.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgment awarding Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 is too harsh and excessive. The same has been passed without application of judicial mind, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that just after marriage, the revisionist and his family members used to demand additional dowry and when such demand of dowry was not fulfilled by opposite party no.2, she was tortured and harassed mentally and physically on the part of the revisionist and his family members. Resultantly, she was bound to left her matrimonial house and is now living separately from the revisionist only on the negligence on the part of the revisionist. Opposite party no.2 always wanted to live with revisionist in peaceful manner but it is the revisionist who does not want to live with her as her husband.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has referred to the statement of the revisionist recorded in his cross-examination as P.W.-1 before the Family Court, Agra in the Divorce Petition No. 1186 of 2022 filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein it has been stated that he and opposite party no.2 are living separately since 29th February, 2016. He had not filed any case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He did not want to keep opposite party no.2 along with him. Even if opposite party no.2 wants to go with him, he do not want to take her along with him because he is not ready to live with her as husband and wife. The aforesaid statement of revisionist had been produced by opposite party no.2 before the trial court as paper nos. 47ba/1, 47Ba/2 and 47ba/5.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 next submits that opposite party no.2 had produced certain documents before the trial court for establishing that in the month of December, 2023, when he was working in Edverb Technology Private Limited, he had an income of more than Rs 1 lakh per month. There is 40 bigha of agricultural land and a big house in his village. A dairy is also running in his village. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has stated that the aforesaid fact has not been controverted by the revisionist or his counsel before the trial court.

9. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 states that the trial court while recording a categorical finding of fact that the revisionist is a capable person with adequate means and earns at least Rs 1 lakh per month from all his sources, awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 while passing the impugned judgment. He also submits that on the basis of aforesaid fact, the said award is minimum amount as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, wherein it has been provided that a wife is entitled to pay 25% of the net monthly income of the husband. As such, this Court may enhance the said award.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision and also the impugned judgment.

11. On perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that opposite party no.2 is living separately because of negligence on the part of the revisionist. In the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act initiated by the revisionist himself against opposite party no.2, he had specifically stated in his cross- examination that he does not want to keep opposite party no.2 along with him as his wife, although she is ready to go along with him but he does not want. The revisionist has also stated that opposite party no.2 does not want to divorce him. It is the revisionist who had filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

12. This Court may also record that in the same statement recorded in his cross-examination as P.W.-1 in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, copy of which has been produced by opposite party no. 2 before the trial court vide paper nos. 47ba/1, 47ba/2 and 47ba/5, the revisionist has stated that he has degree of B.Tech in Electronics. He completed his B.Tech degree four years before marriage. He has been working since four years before marriage. He worked at Taykisha company. He know that in private jobs the salary increases with experience. His last increased salary was Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 32,000/- in a month. His Parents had a house in Sahibabad, Ghaziabad which is situated in Industrial area. His both parents had passed away. His parents had a son i.e. revisionist and three daughters. His all three sisters are married.

13. This Court may further record that the trial court while deciding issue no. 3 has observed that the revisionist has not explained through his affidavit that despite being a B.Tech. degree holder, skilled and having technical and professional qualifications, why he has not made any attempt to work elsewhere and why he has not got any job/work anywhere. He has also not stated, he is suffering from any serious physical or mental illness or disability due to which he is unable to earn income by doing any work as per his technical education and professional qualification.

14. The trial court has further recorded that the income tax returns of the revisionist for the years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 have been filed by the opposite party no.2 vide paper nos. 46ba/2 and 46ba/12 from which it is clear that in the year 2022-23, the revisionist has an income of more than Rs. 1 Lakh per month while working in Adverb Technology Pvt. Ltd. Company. The said documents have also not been rebutted by the revisionist. It is further recorded by the trial court that the admittedly, at present the revisionist has no responsibility towards his parents or any other member of the family. The revisionist is the only brother amongst his three sisters and all the three sisters are married.

15. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has opined that the revisionist is a well bodied person with high technical and professional education and is capable of working.

16. So far as the income of opposite party no.2 is concerned, the trial court has observed that opposite party no.2 has clearly stated in her cross-examination that she do not teach anywhere. She does not do anything. She did not do any job anywhere. She has further stated that she had not made any effort for a job. She specifically denied that she is lecturer in a private school from where she gets salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month. She again denied that she runs a private coaching for competitive examinations from where she gets a salary of Rs. 50,000/-. She admitted that she is M.A. M.Ed." On the basis of facts and evidence available on record, the trial court has opined that it has not been reflected that opposite party no.2 is currently having any income by doing any work and is capable to maintain herself.

17. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has observed that the revisionist is a capable person with sufficient means whereas the opposite party no.2 is not capable to maintain herself.

18. On deeper scrutiny of the evidence led before the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error or illegality in awarding Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance while passing the impugned judgment and order so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The aforesaid maintenance allowance with fully in-consonance with the judgment of 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. 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.

19.Consequently, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Madan Pal Singh, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Sushil/- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 8th February, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Agra in Maintenance Case No. 954 of 2017 (Smt. Ambika Singh Vs. Utkarsh Rana), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Khandoli, District-Agra, whereby the trial court has partly allowed the application filed by opposite party no.2 and directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance on 10th day of each calendar month from the date of filing application.

3. Factual matrix in short is that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 10th February, 2016 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. After some time of marriage, relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Consequently, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 29th February, 2016, which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 954 of 2017 (Smt. Ambika Singh Vs. Utkarsh Rana), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Khandoli, District-Agra. After objection was filed by the revisionist, evidence was led and also after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court has passed by the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2024 partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2. Hence the present criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist without any sufficient cause from 29th February, 2016, as no cruelty or harassment had ever been made by the revisionist. The court below in the judgment impugned has also not recorded any finding as to what kind of harassment has been made with opposite party no.2. On the contrary the divorce was granted to the revisionist by the Family Court vide order dated 10th August, 2023 on the ground of cruelty, caused by opposite party no.2. Since opposite party no.2 has failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment because of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and also she is living separately, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. It is further contended that the revisionist is unemployed and he has no source of income. Earlier he was working in Tykisa Company, Manesar Gurgaon and was getting salary to the tune of Rs. 34,634/- but after the pronouncement of impugned judgment, he was not working in the aforesaid company. It is then submitted that the trial court has not considered the testimony of the witnesses and material evidence available on record while passing the impugned judgment, which is only based on surmises, conjectures and presumption. It is further contended that opposite party no.2 is a highly qualified lady. She has possessed degrees of M.A. and M.Ed. and also she was teaching in a private school. As such, she is capable. The maintenance allowance cannot be granted to a lady who is capable to maintain herself.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgment awarding Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 is too harsh and excessive. The same has been passed without application of judicial mind, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that just after marriage, the revisionist and his family members used to demand additional dowry and when such demand of dowry was not fulfilled by opposite party no.2, she was tortured and harassed mentally and physically on the part of the revisionist and his family members. Resultantly, she was bound to left her matrimonial house and is now living separately from the revisionist only on the negligence on the part of the revisionist. Opposite party no.2 always wanted to live with revisionist in peaceful manner but it is the revisionist who does not want to live with her as her husband.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has referred to the statement of the revisionist recorded in his cross-examination as P.W.-1 before the Family Court, Agra in the Divorce Petition No. 1186 of 2022 filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein it has been stated that he and opposite party no.2 are living separately since 29th February, 2016. He had not filed any case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He did not want to keep opposite party no.2 along with him. Even if opposite party no.2 wants to go with him, he do not want to take her along with him because he is not ready to live with her as husband and wife. The aforesaid statement of revisionist had been produced by opposite party no.2 before the trial court as paper nos. 47ba/1, 47Ba/2 and 47ba/5.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 next submits that opposite party no.2 had produced certain documents before the trial court for establishing that in the month of December, 2023, when he was working in Edverb Technology Private Limited, he had an income of more than Rs 1 lakh per month. There is 40 bigha of agricultural land and a big house in his village. A dairy is also running in his village. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has stated that the aforesaid fact has not been controverted by the revisionist or his counsel before the trial court.

9. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 states that the trial court while recording a categorical finding of fact that the revisionist is a capable person with adequate means and earns at least Rs 1 lakh per month from all his sources, awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 while passing the impugned judgment. He also submits that on the basis of aforesaid fact, the said award is minimum amount as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, wherein it has been provided that a wife is entitled to pay 25% of the net monthly income of the husband. As such, this Court may enhance the said award.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision and also the impugned judgment.

11. On perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that opposite party no.2 is living separately because of negligence on the part of the revisionist. In the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act initiated by the revisionist himself against opposite party no.2, he had specifically stated in his cross- examination that he does not want to keep opposite party no.2 along with him as his wife, although she is ready to go along with him but he does not want. The revisionist has also stated that opposite party no.2 does not want to divorce him. It is the revisionist who had filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

12. This Court may also record that in the same statement recorded in his cross-examination as P.W.-1 in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, copy of which has been produced by opposite party no. 2 before the trial court vide paper nos. 47ba/1, 47ba/2 and 47ba/5, the revisionist has stated that he has degree of B.Tech in Electronics. He completed his B.Tech degree four years before marriage. He has been working since four years before marriage. He worked at Taykisha company. He know that in private jobs the salary increases with experience. His last increased salary was Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 32,000/- in a month. His Parents had a house in Sahibabad, Ghaziabad which is situated in Industrial area. His both parents had passed away. His parents had a son i.e. revisionist and three daughters. His all three sisters are married.

13. This Court may further record that the trial court while deciding issue no. 3 has observed that the revisionist has not explained through his affidavit that despite being a B.Tech. degree holder, skilled and having technical and professional qualifications, why he has not made any attempt to work elsewhere and why he has not got any job/work anywhere. He has also not stated, he is suffering from any serious physical or mental illness or disability due to which he is unable to earn income by doing any work as per his technical education and professional qualification.

14. The trial court has further recorded that the income tax returns of the revisionist for the years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 have been filed by the opposite party no.2 vide paper nos. 46ba/2 and 46ba/12 from which it is clear that in the year 2022-23, the revisionist has an income of more than Rs. 1 Lakh per month while working in Adverb Technology Pvt. Ltd. Company. The said documents have also not been rebutted by the revisionist. It is further recorded by the trial court that the admittedly, at present the revisionist has no responsibility towards his parents or any other member of the family. The revisionist is the only brother amongst his three sisters and all the three sisters are married.

15. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has opined that the revisionist is a well bodied person with high technical and professional education and is capable of working.

16. So far as the income of opposite party no.2 is concerned, the trial court has observed that opposite party no.2 has clearly stated in her cross-examination that she do not teach anywhere. She does not do anything. She did not do any job anywhere. She has further stated that she had not made any effort for a job. She specifically denied that she is lecturer in a private school from where she gets salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month. She again denied that she runs a private coaching for competitive examinations from where she gets a salary of Rs. 50,000/-. She admitted that she is M.A. M.Ed." On the basis of facts and evidence available on record, the trial court has opined that it has not been reflected that opposite party no.2 is currently having any income by doing any work and is capable to maintain herself.

17. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has observed that the revisionist is a capable person with sufficient means whereas the opposite party no.2 is not capable to maintain herself.

18. On deeper scrutiny of the evidence led before the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error or illegality in awarding Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance while passing the impugned judgment and order so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The aforesaid maintenance allowance with fully in-consonance with the judgment of 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. 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.

19.Consequently, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Madan Pal Singh, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Sushil/- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad