Smt. Sonam Soni v. Anoop Kumar), under Section
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1861 of 2024 Anoop Kumar State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manju Lata Verma, Ram Sumer Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajeev Kumar Saxena Chaudhary Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Ram Sumer Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Auraiya, in Case No. 509 of 2018 (Smt. Sonam Soni Vs. Anoop Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Anoopshahr, District- Bulandshahr whereby to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of application and the amount received by the opposite party no.2 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to the adjustment. the revisionist has directed 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 18/19.02.2018 according Hindu rites and ritual, where after some time of the marriage, opposite party no.2 is living separately without any sufficient reason and subsequently, she has performed her second marriage with some another person, in this regard revisionist lodged an FIR. The copy of FIR has been annexed along with rejoinder affidavit and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the revisionist under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the revisionist is unemployed and having no source of income, he is a student, presently pursuing his law degree and therefore, the amount awarded by the court below is excessive and exorbitant. All these factors were not taken into consideration by learned trial court while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set aside the 2 CRLR No. 1861 of 2024 order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision and reduce the amount. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that when the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 sufficient articles were given to the revisionist but the revisionist and his family members were not happy with the same and continuously demanded additional dowry on account of these reasons, she was being tortured. In this regard a first information report had been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist registered as Case Crime No. 34/2018, under Section 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. It is further submitted that the revisionist is an able bodied person and it is his pious duty to maintain his wife. In Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arise. The amount awarded by learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 22.01.2024, it appears that there is no dispute regarding marriage of the parties as husband and wife. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the court below has categorically recorded the findings that the opposite party no.2 was compelled to live separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist itself, as she was subjected to torture on several counts. So far as the second marriage of opposite party no.2 is concerned as alleged by the learned counsel for the parties, revisionist is at liberty to file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the court about the change circumstances but it appears from the record that the first information report regarding second marriage has been lodged on 02.06.2024 and impugned order has been passed on 22.1.2024. Hence, this Court being a revisional court, may not re- appreciate the evidence to return its own finding. 6. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, he is a student and pursuing his law degree however, the trial court has concluded that there is no documentary evidence on record regarding income of the revisionist but even if revisionist is considered to be labourer, even then he can earn Rs.600/- per day, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per month and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus 3 CRLR No. 1861 of 2024 Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 7. The revisionist/husband is an able-bodied person and, therefore, he cannot shirk from his pious liability to maintain his wife and the maintenance awarded by the court below of Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive. therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed. September 9, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad