Shivendra Dixit v. Party

2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Jyoti Kumar Singh, Mr. Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 218 of 2019 (Smt. Kaushik & Another Vs. Shivendra) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (son) towards maintenance allowance on 8th day of each calendar from the date of filing of instant application

4. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of total Rs. 8,000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- each) is too excessive and exorbitant because at present the revisionist is unemployed and has no source of income and he somehow earns few money for his livelihood by farming. Although, earlier between 6th September, 2017 to 15th November, 2017 revisionist was working as a short-time teacher in a Central School from where he was getting Rs. 21,250/- as salary but at present he has degrees of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. but he is unemployed. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that considering the above facts and circumstances, the 2 CRLR No. 1583 of 2024 amount of maintenance allowance by the trial court under the impugned judgment may be reduced to some extent.

5. Except the above contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has not stated anything else.

6. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has 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. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that it is not undisputed fact that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, whereas opposite party no.3 is his real son and it is obligatory upon him to maintain his wife and son i.e. opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is next submitted that the revisionist, being an able bodied person, is having a degrees of B.A. B.Ed. and M.A. and he also takes tuition having some agricultural land and in that circumstance he earns handsome amount. He, therefore, submits that amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.

8. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not committed any error in the eyes of law, therefore, present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. 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, whereas opposite party no.3 is his real son and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and real son.

10. Since learned counsel for the revisionist has not stated anything about the separate living of opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist, this Court has nothing to record or discuss anything about it.

11. From the impugned judgment it transpires that the trial court has not considered the fact that the revisionist is unemployed and without assessing 3 CRLR No. 1583 of 2024 his real income, the trial court under the impugned judgment has awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 towards maintenance allowance i.e. total Rs. 8,000/- per month.

12. It is admitted position that the revisionist has not claimed that he is not physically deformed. The revisionist is an able bodied person and he is having degrees of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. For such a highly educated person, he has every scope of taking tuition and earns money.

13. 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 and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.

14. In the case in hand, it is admitted facts that the revisionist is a highly educated person having degrees of B.A. B.Ed. and M.A. and he may earn money from taking tuition and being an able bodied person he may also earn money from other work and from agricultural work. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, the revisionist would have earned Rs. 25,000/- per month.

15. 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.

16. Keeping in view of 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 incommensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 25,000/- per month would be Rs. 6250/- per month. As such, Rs. 6250/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is just reasonable and realistic. Accordingly, the amounts of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment are reduced to Rs. 3,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) from Rs. 4,000/- per month and also to Rs. 2,750/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 (son) from Rs. 4,000/- and the 4 CRLR No. 1583 of 2024 same shall be payable from the date of passing of the impugned judgment

17. Consequently, judgment and order dated 18th February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 218 of 2019 (Smt. Kaushik & Another Vs. Shivendra) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 3,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 2,750/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 (son) towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. 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 20th September, 2025.

18. 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 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.

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

20. There shall be no order as to costs. September 11, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Jyoti Kumar Singh, Mr. Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 218 of 2019 (Smt. Kaushik & Another Vs. Shivendra) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (son) towards maintenance allowance on 8th day of each calendar from the date of filing of instant application

4. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of total Rs. 8,000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- each) is too excessive and exorbitant because at present the revisionist is unemployed and has no source of income and he somehow earns few money for his livelihood by farming. Although, earlier between 6th September, 2017 to 15th November, 2017 revisionist was working as a short-time teacher in a Central School from where he was getting Rs. 21,250/- as salary but at present he has degrees of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. but he is unemployed. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that considering the above facts and circumstances, the 2 CRLR No. 1583 of 2024 amount of maintenance allowance by the trial court under the impugned judgment may be reduced to some extent.

5. Except the above contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has not stated anything else.

6. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has 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. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that it is not undisputed fact that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, whereas opposite party no.3 is his real son and it is obligatory upon him to maintain his wife and son i.e. opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is next submitted that the revisionist, being an able bodied person, is having a degrees of B.A. B.Ed. and M.A. and he also takes tuition having some agricultural land and in that circumstance he earns handsome amount. He, therefore, submits that amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.

8. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not committed any error in the eyes of law, therefore, present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. 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, whereas opposite party no.3 is his real son and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and real son.

10. Since learned counsel for the revisionist has not stated anything about the separate living of opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist, this Court has nothing to record or discuss anything about it.

11. From the impugned judgment it transpires that the trial court has not considered the fact that the revisionist is unemployed and without assessing 3 CRLR No. 1583 of 2024 his real income, the trial court under the impugned judgment has awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 towards maintenance allowance i.e. total Rs. 8,000/- per month.

12. It is admitted position that the revisionist has not claimed that he is not physically deformed. The revisionist is an able bodied person and he is having degrees of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. For such a highly educated person, he has every scope of taking tuition and earns money.

13. 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 and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.

14. In the case in hand, it is admitted facts that the revisionist is a highly educated person having degrees of B.A. B.Ed. and M.A. and he may earn money from taking tuition and being an able bodied person he may also earn money from other work and from agricultural work. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, the revisionist would have earned Rs. 25,000/- per month.

15. 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.

16. Keeping in view of 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 incommensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 25,000/- per month would be Rs. 6250/- per month. As such, Rs. 6250/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is just reasonable and realistic. Accordingly, the amounts of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment are reduced to Rs. 3,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) from Rs. 4,000/- per month and also to Rs. 2,750/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 (son) from Rs. 4,000/- and the 4 CRLR No. 1583 of 2024 same shall be payable from the date of passing of the impugned judgment

17. Consequently, judgment and order dated 18th February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 218 of 2019 (Smt. Kaushik & Another Vs. Shivendra) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 3,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 2,750/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 (son) towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. 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 20th September, 2025.

18. 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 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.

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

20. There shall be no order as to costs. September 11, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad