High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the amount of maintenance awarded against the revisionist is on higher side, as the source of the income of the revisionist is not to that extent that he would be able to pay the maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the son (in aggregate, to the tune of Rs.17,000/- per month), however he agrees to the extent that normal maintenance towards expenses could have been awarded to opposite party nos. 2 and 3, which was not done by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further stated that the revisionist is an employed youth and is earning his livelihood by doing small labourer job. Though the revisionist is also having some agricultural land, but the same is not so fertile that may produce much income to the revisionist. Hence the amount of maintenance is liable to be reduced to lower minimum.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 has stated that, initially a prayer was made by opposite party nos.2 and 3 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau to award the maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month, however the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, evidence on record and the income of the revisionist, awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month to both wife and son of the revisionist. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 has further stated that the revisionist is having sufficient income to carry out his livelihood and capable to take care of wife and son. The revisionist is also running a shop in the name of 'Baba Tyres' and is also having sufficient agricultural income and therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is appropriate, reasonable and sufficient, as per the income of the revisionist.

5. However, learned counsel appearing appearing for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has fairly conceded that a sum of Rs.2500/- was directed to be awarded to opposite party no.2 in a separate proceedings initiated by her under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and it has come in the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 that if, any maintenance has been awarded in any other proceedings, the same shall also be adjusted in the present maintenance awarded to opposite party nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned AGA has also adopted the same arguments, as advanced on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

7. Having regard to the fact that initially opposite party nos.2 and 3 made a prayer for awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, however after considering the material on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to wife and son i.e. opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 respectively.

8. After going through the impugned judgment and order dated

06.03.2024, it appears that the revisionist is a person having capacity and capability of earning reasonable income from different sources and therefore, can take care of estranged wife and son, even if they are staying separately. Though the income of the husband is stated to be Rs.1,00,000/- per month by opposite party no.2, however no such evidence has been adduced in this regard.

9. Be that as it may, even if the amount of 50% of the income of the revisionist is presumed to be correct, then also his income comes to a reasonably sufficient. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate/FTC (Offence Against Women), Mau vide order dated

16.05.2022 awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- as maintenance to opposite party no.2 in the proceedings, under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and as per the impugned order dated 06.03.2024, the said amount ought to have been adjusted, while passing the final order in the maintenance proceedings in respect of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said amount of Rs.2500/- is to be reduced from the amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife i.e. Rs.12,000 - Rs.2500= Rs.9500/- per month therefore, the amount of maintenance to be paid to opposite party no.2 by the revisionist is reduced to Rs.9500/- per month, however there will be no change, so far as the amount of maintenance to be paid to the son i.e. opposite party no.3 is concerned.

10. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to be paid by the revisionist to opposite party no.2 is reduced to Rs.9,500/- per month, however rest of the order regarding maintenance to opposite party no.3 shall remain unaltered.

11. The present revision stands disposed of in terms above.

12. It is needless to say that if the revisionist is not regularly paying the said amount of maintenance, the opposite party no.2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal remedy as provided under the law. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Salim SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the amount of maintenance awarded against the revisionist is on higher side, as the source of the income of the revisionist is not to that extent that he would be able to pay the maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the son (in aggregate, to the tune of Rs.17,000/- per month), however he agrees to the extent that normal maintenance towards expenses could have been awarded to opposite party nos. 2 and 3, which was not done by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further stated that the revisionist is an employed youth and is earning his livelihood by doing small labourer job. Though the revisionist is also having some agricultural land, but the same is not so fertile that may produce much income to the revisionist. Hence the amount of maintenance is liable to be reduced to lower minimum.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 has stated that, initially a prayer was made by opposite party nos.2 and 3 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau to award the maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month, however the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, evidence on record and the income of the revisionist, awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month to both wife and son of the revisionist. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 has further stated that the revisionist is having sufficient income to carry out his livelihood and capable to take care of wife and son. The revisionist is also running a shop in the name of 'Baba Tyres' and is also having sufficient agricultural income and therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is appropriate, reasonable and sufficient, as per the income of the revisionist.

5. However, learned counsel appearing appearing for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has fairly conceded that a sum of Rs.2500/- was directed to be awarded to opposite party no.2 in a separate proceedings initiated by her under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and it has come in the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 that if, any maintenance has been awarded in any other proceedings, the same shall also be adjusted in the present maintenance awarded to opposite party nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned AGA has also adopted the same arguments, as advanced on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

7. Having regard to the fact that initially opposite party nos.2 and 3 made a prayer for awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, however after considering the material on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to wife and son i.e. opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 respectively.

8. After going through the impugned judgment and order dated

06.03.2024, it appears that the revisionist is a person having capacity and capability of earning reasonable income from different sources and therefore, can take care of estranged wife and son, even if they are staying separately. Though the income of the husband is stated to be Rs.1,00,000/- per month by opposite party no.2, however no such evidence has been adduced in this regard.

9. Be that as it may, even if the amount of 50% of the income of the revisionist is presumed to be correct, then also his income comes to a reasonably sufficient. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate/FTC (Offence Against Women), Mau vide order dated

16.05.2022 awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- as maintenance to opposite party no.2 in the proceedings, under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and as per the impugned order dated 06.03.2024, the said amount ought to have been adjusted, while passing the final order in the maintenance proceedings in respect of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said amount of Rs.2500/- is to be reduced from the amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife i.e. Rs.12,000 - Rs.2500= Rs.9500/- per month therefore, the amount of maintenance to be paid to opposite party no.2 by the revisionist is reduced to Rs.9500/- per month, however there will be no change, so far as the amount of maintenance to be paid to the son i.e. opposite party no.3 is concerned.

10. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to be paid by the revisionist to opposite party no.2 is reduced to Rs.9,500/- per month, however rest of the order regarding maintenance to opposite party no.3 shall remain unaltered.

11. The present revision stands disposed of in terms above.

12. It is needless to say that if the revisionist is not regularly paying the said amount of maintenance, the opposite party no.2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal remedy as provided under the law. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Salim SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad