Khushboo Kesarwani v. Sandeep Kumar) filed under Section

2. Heard Shri Sharafat Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-opposite party no. 1 and perusal the material on record.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No. 166 of 2021 (Khushboo Kesarwani Vs. Sandeep Kumar) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Puramufti, District- Kaushambi, by which the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist and Rs.500/- per month to Aryan (till they attains the age of majority), the son of the revisionist, from the date of application.

4. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is very meagre and keeping in view the inflation rate and cost of living, at this meagre amount the survival of revisionist along-with her son Aryan is not possible. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that in the present scenario at least Rs.500/- is the fee of a Doctor for one visit. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 is running a manure shop, which fact is evident from the documents annexed at page no.46 and except this no other contention has been raised. 2 CRLR No. 1967 of 2024

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that during Covid-19 period the manure shop of the opposite party no.2 was closed and father of the opposite party no.2 also died, thus, the responsibility of his mother is also on his shoulder. Keeping in view of the responsibility of other family members the amount awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be meagre. Learned counsel further submitted that now opposite party no.2 is selling polythene bags and currently his manure shop has been closed. The opposite party no.2 fairly conceded that the amount awarded in favour of his son Aryan is meagre and agrees for enhancement of his maintenance amount to the extent of Rs.2000/- in place of Rs.500/-.

6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties and of learned A.G.A. and perused the judgment and orders of the trial court, it is admitted that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and Master Aryan is the son of the opposite party no.2. It is also not denied by the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist is having some source of income,so that she may be able to maintain herself along with her minor son. It is also admitted that during the course of the argument that the opposite party no.2 now runs the shop of selling polythene bags. However, there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the shop of the manure run by the opposite party no.2 has now been closed and he is not running the said shop.

7. Now the question before this Court is to ascertain the amount of maintenance which is realistic, just and proper. Admittedly, it is the pious duty of the opposite party and further it is legal obligation on the part of the opposite party no.2 to maintain her wife and children. He also admitted during the course of argument that the opposite party no.2 is running the business of polythene bags. Keeping in view the use of polythene bags in the general public at large, it cannot be said that there could not be a handsome sell and income of the respondent no.2. However, there is no documentary evidence on record to ascertain its actual sell but keeping in view the present scenario and cost of living, the opposite party no.2 can easily earn Rs.20,000-22,000/- per month from the sell of polythene bags, otherwise, he cannot be in a position to survive his other family as well as himself in these hard days, therefore, if it is assumed the income of the opposite party no.2 Rs.22,000/- per month, it would be appropriate to grant 25% of the income of the husband as maintenance to the wife and children, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, which comes to 3 CRLR No. 1967 of 2024 Rs.5500/- per month.

8. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month granted by the trial court is enhanced to Rs.5500/- per month, out of which Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the revisionist-Khushboo Kesarwani and Rs.2500/- per month to Master Aryan (till he attains the age of majority) from the date of order.

9. With the above observations/directions the instant criminal revision is partly allowed.

10. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the opposite party no.2, which cannot be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in ten equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest nine instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month.

11. There will be no order as to cost. September 25, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Shri Sharafat Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-opposite party no. 1 and perusal the material on record.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No. 166 of 2021 (Khushboo Kesarwani Vs. Sandeep Kumar) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Puramufti, District- Kaushambi, by which the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist and Rs.500/- per month to Aryan (till they attains the age of majority), the son of the revisionist, from the date of application.

4. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is very meagre and keeping in view the inflation rate and cost of living, at this meagre amount the survival of revisionist along-with her son Aryan is not possible. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that in the present scenario at least Rs.500/- is the fee of a Doctor for one visit. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 is running a manure shop, which fact is evident from the documents annexed at page no.46 and except this no other contention has been raised. 2 CRLR No. 1967 of 2024

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that during Covid-19 period the manure shop of the opposite party no.2 was closed and father of the opposite party no.2 also died, thus, the responsibility of his mother is also on his shoulder. Keeping in view of the responsibility of other family members the amount awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be meagre. Learned counsel further submitted that now opposite party no.2 is selling polythene bags and currently his manure shop has been closed. The opposite party no.2 fairly conceded that the amount awarded in favour of his son Aryan is meagre and agrees for enhancement of his maintenance amount to the extent of Rs.2000/- in place of Rs.500/-.

6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties and of learned A.G.A. and perused the judgment and orders of the trial court, it is admitted that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and Master Aryan is the son of the opposite party no.2. It is also not denied by the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist is having some source of income,so that she may be able to maintain herself along with her minor son. It is also admitted that during the course of the argument that the opposite party no.2 now runs the shop of selling polythene bags. However, there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the shop of the manure run by the opposite party no.2 has now been closed and he is not running the said shop.

7. Now the question before this Court is to ascertain the amount of maintenance which is realistic, just and proper. Admittedly, it is the pious duty of the opposite party and further it is legal obligation on the part of the opposite party no.2 to maintain her wife and children. He also admitted during the course of argument that the opposite party no.2 is running the business of polythene bags. Keeping in view the use of polythene bags in the general public at large, it cannot be said that there could not be a handsome sell and income of the respondent no.2. However, there is no documentary evidence on record to ascertain its actual sell but keeping in view the present scenario and cost of living, the opposite party no.2 can easily earn Rs.20,000-22,000/- per month from the sell of polythene bags, otherwise, he cannot be in a position to survive his other family as well as himself in these hard days, therefore, if it is assumed the income of the opposite party no.2 Rs.22,000/- per month, it would be appropriate to grant 25% of the income of the husband as maintenance to the wife and children, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, which comes to 3 CRLR No. 1967 of 2024 Rs.5500/- per month.

8. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month granted by the trial court is enhanced to Rs.5500/- per month, out of which Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the revisionist-Khushboo Kesarwani and Rs.2500/- per month to Master Aryan (till he attains the age of majority) from the date of order.

9. With the above observations/directions the instant criminal revision is partly allowed.

10. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the opposite party no.2, which cannot be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in ten equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest nine instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month.

11. There will be no order as to cost. September 25, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad