State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Maintenance (Old) Case No. 326 of 2019 (Smt. Deepikapuri Vs. Hariharpuri) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Nagphani, District- Moradabad, awarding Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application dated

3.7.2019 till April, 2023.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 14.11.1994 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at District Moradabad and out of their wedlock three children were born, namely, Kumari Sevantika, aged 21 years, Kumari Shivalika, aged 18 years and Ganpati aged 16 years. The behaviour of the revisionist was cordial and normal during the marriage but after the birth of the three children the behaviour of the revisionist became strained and changed. At present the revisionist is maintaining his daughter Shivalika and son Ganpati and also bears their expenses such as fooding, lodging and educational expenses etc. The revisionist is having landed property at village Digner, Tehsil and District Agra. The revisionist is the owner of Mankameshwar Charitable Hospital and Shri Mankameshwar Vidyalaya and from these 2 CRLR No. 1802 of 2024 sources, the opposite party no.2 earns Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per annum and he further earns Rs.1 crore through religious ceremonies and sermons. The revisionist is the Mahant and administrator of a famous temple, which is know as Mankameshwar Temple, Agra. In the year 2015 the opposite party no.2 expressed her desire to do the course of M.D. and being annoyed the revisionist withdrawn his financial support and since then she along with her children is living in her parental house.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 14.11.1994 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at District Moradabad. No demand of dowry was ever made either by the revisionist or by his other family members. Learned counsel further states that out of wedlock of the revisionist and opposite party no.2 three children were born, namely, Kumari Sevantika, aged 21 years, Kumari Shivalika, aged 18 years and Ganpati aged 16 years. It is further stated that the opposite party no.2 started misbehaving with the revisionist and his family members and without any sufficient reason, since 2015 she started living with her parents and despite best efforts being made by the revisionist, she did not turn up to her matrimonial house and further she failed to discharge her marital obligation, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the revisionist.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further states that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is ex-facie illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further states that the opposite party no.2 has failed to establish the actual source of income of the revisionist as the money given in the love and affection for deity (Lord Shiva) are donations and gifts to the Lord which are being used for maintenance of the temple. Learned counsel for the revisionist further states that the opposite party no.2 is working as Doctor in Teerthankar Mahavir Medical College and Research Centre and drawing salary of Rs.1,40,000/- per month, she is living in adultery and hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the son of the opposite party no.2 was got admitted in Meerut Vidya Global School of which monthly fee was Rs.50,000/-. The revisionist is a Mahant of Shri Mankameshwar Mandir, Agra. The opposite party no.2 has no source of income at the time when the revisionist has stopped to provide financial support to the opposite party no.2, therefore, she borrowed Rs.40,00,000/- 3 CRLR No. 1802 of 2024 from her father for the purposes of providing better education to her son Ganpati. Thereafter, she filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on

03.07.2019 claiming maintenance from the revisionist to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further stated that the yearly income of the revisionist is Rs.2 crore. The trial court vide order dated 17.02.2024 partly allowed the application of the opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.50,000/- per month from 03.07.2019 to April, 2023. The impugned order of the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court.

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also admitted at page no.9 of the judgment that the claim of opposite party no.2 was pending since 2019 and during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before the trial court the revisionist has not paid a single penny to her. The opposite party no.2 has further admitted in her examination-in-chief, which has been mentioned in para-25 of the judgement that she is working as Doctor at Teerthankar Mahavir Medical College and Research Centre from May, 2023 and earns Rs.1,40,000/- per month, which reflects that after May, 2023 she was in employment and there is no evidence on record whether she has any source of income or not, before the date of filing of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till May, 2023. Accordingly, the trial court has reached at the conclusion and allowed maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of presentation of the application i.e. since 03.07.2019 to May, 2023.

8. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, he admitted in his reply that he is able bodied person and he is owner of Mankameshwar Charitable Hospital and Administrator of Mankameshwar Temple, Agra, which is a very famous temple. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he had 14 bighas land, one charitable Vidyalaya and Goshala. He also admitted that after separation of his wife, he had traveled abroad 6-7 times.

9. As per the ITR of the revisionist for the assessment year 2020-21, his total income has been shown Rs.4,94,310/- per annum, in the assessment year 2021-22 the annual income of the revisionist has been shown as Rs.4,99,980/-, in the assessment year 2022-23 the annual income of the revisionist has been shown as Rs.4,99,590/-, in the assessment year 2023-24 the annual income of the revisionist has been shown as Rs.4,98,400/- and in the assessment year 2024-25 the annual income of the revisionist has been 4 CRLR No. 1802 of 2024 shown as Rs.6,78,520/-. Apart from this, after the year 2014 the revisionist has traveled abroad i.e. Spain, Denmark, Europe, Landon, Holed, Dubai and Nepal, therefore, it cannot be said that if a person having no sufficient source of income, then how and under what circumstances, he managed to visit abroad, meaning thereby the revisionist has some other source of income as he is the Mahant and Administrator of the very famous temple known as Mankameshwar Mandir, Agra, he is also having charitable hospital, one Vidyalaya and Goshala etc. and earns sufficient money. Apart from the above sources, the revisionist is having landed property at village Digner, Tehsil and District Agra and earns sufficient money.

10. Considering the income tax returns filed by the revisionist, which reflects that the income of the revisionist is in the increasing order, therefore, it cannot be said that the revisionist has no source of income, he also visited abroad on so many occasions and further the revisionist has landed properties and from it he earns sufficient money, he is able bodied person and further considering the monthly income of the revisionist from all sources as Rs.1,40,000/-, 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 Rs.35,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice to both the parties.

11. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month granted by the trial court is reduced to Rs.35,000/- per month, which is to be paid by the revisionist to the opposite party no.2, for the period commencing from 03.07.2019 to April, 2023. The arrears shall also be accumulated at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month from 03.07.2019 to April, 2023.

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

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

1. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Maintenance (Old) Case No. 326 of 2019 (Smt. Deepikapuri Vs. Hariharpuri) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C Police Station- Nagphani, District- Moradabad, awarding Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application dated

3.7.2019 till April, 2023.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 14.11.1994 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at District Moradabad and out of their wedlock three children were born, namely, Kumari Sevantika, aged 21 years, Kumari Shivalika, aged 18 years and Ganpati aged 16 years. The behaviour of the revisionist was cordial and normal during the marriage but after the birth of the three children the behaviour of the revisionist became strained and changed. At present the revisionist is maintaining his daughter Shivalika and son Ganpati and also bears their expenses such as fooding, lodging and educational expenses etc. The revisionist is having landed property at village Digner, Tehsil and District Agra. The revisionist is the owner of Mankameshwar Charitable Hospital and Shri Mankameshwar Vidyalaya and from these 2 CRLR No. 1802 of 2024 sources, the opposite party no.2 earns Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per annum and he further earns Rs.1 crore through religious ceremonies and sermons. The revisionist is the Mahant and administrator of a famous temple, which is know as Mankameshwar Temple, Agra. In the year 2015 the opposite party no.2 expressed her desire to do the course of M.D. and being annoyed the revisionist withdrawn his financial support and since then she along with her children is living in her parental house.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 14.11.1994 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at District Moradabad. No demand of dowry was ever made either by the revisionist or by his other family members. Learned counsel further states that out of wedlock of the revisionist and opposite party no.2 three children were born, namely, Kumari Sevantika, aged 21 years, Kumari Shivalika, aged 18 years and Ganpati aged 16 years. It is further stated that the opposite party no.2 started misbehaving with the revisionist and his family members and without any sufficient reason, since 2015 she started living with her parents and despite best efforts being made by the revisionist, she did not turn up to her matrimonial house and further she failed to discharge her marital obligation, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the revisionist.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further states that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is ex-facie illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further states that the opposite party no.2 has failed to establish the actual source of income of the revisionist as the money given in the love and affection for deity (Lord Shiva) are donations and gifts to the Lord which are being used for maintenance of the temple. Learned counsel for the revisionist further states that the opposite party no.2 is working as Doctor in Teerthankar Mahavir Medical College and Research Centre and drawing salary of Rs.1,40,000/- per month, she is living in adultery and hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the son of the opposite party no.2 was got admitted in Meerut Vidya Global School of which monthly fee was Rs.50,000/-. The revisionist is a Mahant of Shri Mankameshwar Mandir, Agra. The opposite party no.2 has no source of income at the time when the revisionist has stopped to provide financial support to the opposite party no.2, therefore, she borrowed Rs.40,00,000/- 3 CRLR No. 1802 of 2024 from her father for the purposes of providing better education to her son Ganpati. Thereafter, she filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on

03.07.2019 claiming maintenance from the revisionist to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further stated that the yearly income of the revisionist is Rs.2 crore. The trial court vide order dated 17.02.2024 partly allowed the application of the opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.50,000/- per month from 03.07.2019 to April, 2023. The impugned order of the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court.

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also admitted at page no.9 of the judgment that the claim of opposite party no.2 was pending since 2019 and during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before the trial court the revisionist has not paid a single penny to her. The opposite party no.2 has further admitted in her examination-in-chief, which has been mentioned in para-25 of the judgement that she is working as Doctor at Teerthankar Mahavir Medical College and Research Centre from May, 2023 and earns Rs.1,40,000/- per month, which reflects that after May, 2023 she was in employment and there is no evidence on record whether she has any source of income or not, before the date of filing of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till May, 2023. Accordingly, the trial court has reached at the conclusion and allowed maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of presentation of the application i.e. since 03.07.2019 to May, 2023.

8. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, he admitted in his reply that he is able bodied person and he is owner of Mankameshwar Charitable Hospital and Administrator of Mankameshwar Temple, Agra, which is a very famous temple. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he had 14 bighas land, one charitable Vidyalaya and Goshala. He also admitted that after separation of his wife, he had traveled abroad 6-7 times.

9. As per the ITR of the revisionist for the assessment year 2020-21, his total income has been shown Rs.4,94,310/- per annum, in the assessment year 2021-22 the annual income of the revisionist has been shown as Rs.4,99,980/-, in the assessment year 2022-23 the annual income of the revisionist has been shown as Rs.4,99,590/-, in the assessment year 2023-24 the annual income of the revisionist has been shown as Rs.4,98,400/- and in the assessment year 2024-25 the annual income of the revisionist has been 4 CRLR No. 1802 of 2024 shown as Rs.6,78,520/-. Apart from this, after the year 2014 the revisionist has traveled abroad i.e. Spain, Denmark, Europe, Landon, Holed, Dubai and Nepal, therefore, it cannot be said that if a person having no sufficient source of income, then how and under what circumstances, he managed to visit abroad, meaning thereby the revisionist has some other source of income as he is the Mahant and Administrator of the very famous temple known as Mankameshwar Mandir, Agra, he is also having charitable hospital, one Vidyalaya and Goshala etc. and earns sufficient money. Apart from the above sources, the revisionist is having landed property at village Digner, Tehsil and District Agra and earns sufficient money.

10. Considering the income tax returns filed by the revisionist, which reflects that the income of the revisionist is in the increasing order, therefore, it cannot be said that the revisionist has no source of income, he also visited abroad on so many occasions and further the revisionist has landed properties and from it he earns sufficient money, he is able bodied person and further considering the monthly income of the revisionist from all sources as Rs.1,40,000/-, 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 Rs.35,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice to both the parties.

11. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month granted by the trial court is reduced to Rs.35,000/- per month, which is to be paid by the revisionist to the opposite party no.2, for the period commencing from 03.07.2019 to April, 2023. The arrears shall also be accumulated at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month from 03.07.2019 to April, 2023.

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

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