Sogra Khatoon and another v. Mumtaz Ahmad), under Section

District Mau, whereby trial court directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist no.2 (minor daughter of the revisionist no.1-Sogra Khatoon) from the date of the order dated 17.01.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the learned trial court without taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020, granted maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.1000/- to the revisionist no.2 from the date of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed before the trial court till the date of judgment, therefore, the revisionists have preferred the instant revision for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that opposite party no.2 is working as a plumber and his earning is Rs.60,000/- per month, therefore, the maintenance amount as has been awarded by the trial court is a very meager, hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court deserves to be modified. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that the trial court has allowed Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.2500/- as maintenance amount to the revisionist no.2 as maintenance from the date of the judgment and the said amount is also meagre and deserves to be modified.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 is doing the work of plumber. It is admitted that the opposite party is earning Rs.10,000/- to 12000/- per month, therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is to excessive. It is further submitted that there is no other source of income of the opposite party no.2, therefore, he is unable to pay the amount of maintenance as has been awarded by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 17.01.2024.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The opposite party no.2-Mumtaj Ahmad in his examination-in- chief before the trial court has stated that prior to 24-25 years his marriage was solemnized with the revisionist no.1-Sogra and their wedlock one daughter was born, namely, Tanishka and at present she is aged about 14 years. His daughter Tanishka is living with his mother-revisionist no.1. When no male child was born from the wedlock of the revisionist no.1-Sogra, the opposite party no.2 solemnized his second marriage. The opposite party no.2 and his second wife are living in the same house. Three children, namely, Umerujon, aged about 15 years, Abusaj, aged about 11 years and Mohammad Amadat aged about 5 years, are also living in the same house but the opposite party no.2 is the father of Mohammad Amja only. The opposite party no.2 and his second wife, are also upbringing those children. The opposite party no.2 has further stated that his second wife is doing the work of cutting saries and from that she earns Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/- per month. Out of three children, two are studying. Umerujon is studying in class-8th in Aalia Girls High School, Abusay Puraghat and all the children were going to school by foot. One children is living in Boys Hostel, Puraghat, he visits his house in the interval of fifteen days.

8. In the cross-examination before the trial court the opposite party no.2 has stated that he is doing the work of labour. He also performs the work of plumber. He further stated that from the work of plumber, he earns Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He has also stated that he was not having any male child, therefore, he performed his second marriage. From his first wife i.e. from the wedlock of revisionist no.1, male child was born but could not survive. From the wedlock of second wife, they born a male child, who is living with them. There is no possibility of being born a child from the first wife-revisionist no.1. He further stated that I also take care of Sogra Khatoon-revisionist no.1 and his daughter Tamishka Hayat-revisionist no.2.

9. It is admitted to the parties that the revisionist no.1-Sogra Khatoon is the wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist no.2-Tamishka Hayat is his daughter. It is also proved that the opposite party no.2 is doing the work of labour. Often he performs the work of plumber. From the work of plumbering the opposite party no.2 earns Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. The monthly income of the revisionist has also find mentioned in the judgment of the trial court, which clearly goes to show that the monthly income of the opposite party no.2 is Rs.12,000/-.

10. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 17.01.2024 awarded maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the revisionist no.1-Sogra Khatoon and Rs.2500/- to the revisionist no.2- Tamishka Hayat (the minor daughter of the revisionist no.1) from the date of judgment, which is as per the judgment of the Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another,(2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 is excessive, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that only up to 25% of the income of the husband would be awarded as maintenance but in the present case the opposite party no.2 is doing the work of labour, therefore, the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court which in total comes to Rs.4,500/- per month, which is already excess in proportion to the monthly income of the opposite party no.2.

11. In view of above, the instant criminal revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh, J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

District Mau, whereby trial court directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist no.2 (minor daughter of the revisionist no.1-Sogra Khatoon) from the date of the order dated 17.01.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the learned trial court without taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020, granted maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.1000/- to the revisionist no.2 from the date of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed before the trial court till the date of judgment, therefore, the revisionists have preferred the instant revision for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that opposite party no.2 is working as a plumber and his earning is Rs.60,000/- per month, therefore, the maintenance amount as has been awarded by the trial court is a very meager, hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court deserves to be modified. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that the trial court has allowed Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.2500/- as maintenance amount to the revisionist no.2 as maintenance from the date of the judgment and the said amount is also meagre and deserves to be modified.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 is doing the work of plumber. It is admitted that the opposite party is earning Rs.10,000/- to 12000/- per month, therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is to excessive. It is further submitted that there is no other source of income of the opposite party no.2, therefore, he is unable to pay the amount of maintenance as has been awarded by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 17.01.2024.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The opposite party no.2-Mumtaj Ahmad in his examination-in- chief before the trial court has stated that prior to 24-25 years his marriage was solemnized with the revisionist no.1-Sogra and their wedlock one daughter was born, namely, Tanishka and at present she is aged about 14 years. His daughter Tanishka is living with his mother-revisionist no.1. When no male child was born from the wedlock of the revisionist no.1-Sogra, the opposite party no.2 solemnized his second marriage. The opposite party no.2 and his second wife are living in the same house. Three children, namely, Umerujon, aged about 15 years, Abusaj, aged about 11 years and Mohammad Amadat aged about 5 years, are also living in the same house but the opposite party no.2 is the father of Mohammad Amja only. The opposite party no.2 and his second wife, are also upbringing those children. The opposite party no.2 has further stated that his second wife is doing the work of cutting saries and from that she earns Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/- per month. Out of three children, two are studying. Umerujon is studying in class-8th in Aalia Girls High School, Abusay Puraghat and all the children were going to school by foot. One children is living in Boys Hostel, Puraghat, he visits his house in the interval of fifteen days.

8. In the cross-examination before the trial court the opposite party no.2 has stated that he is doing the work of labour. He also performs the work of plumber. He further stated that from the work of plumber, he earns Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He has also stated that he was not having any male child, therefore, he performed his second marriage. From his first wife i.e. from the wedlock of revisionist no.1, male child was born but could not survive. From the wedlock of second wife, they born a male child, who is living with them. There is no possibility of being born a child from the first wife-revisionist no.1. He further stated that I also take care of Sogra Khatoon-revisionist no.1 and his daughter Tamishka Hayat-revisionist no.2.

9. It is admitted to the parties that the revisionist no.1-Sogra Khatoon is the wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist no.2-Tamishka Hayat is his daughter. It is also proved that the opposite party no.2 is doing the work of labour. Often he performs the work of plumber. From the work of plumbering the opposite party no.2 earns Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. The monthly income of the revisionist has also find mentioned in the judgment of the trial court, which clearly goes to show that the monthly income of the opposite party no.2 is Rs.12,000/-.

10. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 17.01.2024 awarded maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the revisionist no.1-Sogra Khatoon and Rs.2500/- to the revisionist no.2- Tamishka Hayat (the minor daughter of the revisionist no.1) from the date of judgment, which is as per the judgment of the Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another,(2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 is excessive, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that only up to 25% of the income of the husband would be awarded as maintenance but in the present case the opposite party no.2 is doing the work of labour, therefore, the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court which in total comes to Rs.4,500/- per month, which is already excess in proportion to the monthly income of the opposite party no.2.

11. In view of above, the instant criminal revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh, J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad