State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pundir, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 43 of 2019 (Smt. Meenu Tyagi vs. Gaurav Tyagi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Nagal, District-Saharanpur insofar as it awards Rs. 6,000/- per month the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned order. The revisionist by means of the present revision also prays for enhancement of the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment.

3. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is no doubt true that during the course of trial, the opposite party no.2 has sufficient means of earnings as having agricultural land (70 bighas), meaning thereby that his total income was approximately Rs. 30000/- per month. However, the trial court while partly allowing the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has awarded Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, which is too meagre and not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. 2 CRLR No. 2009 of 2024

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that considering the above facts and circumstances, the amount of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment may be enhanced to some extent after modifying the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

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

6. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have 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. 6,000/- per month in favour of revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned order, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. They further submit that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionist is reasonable, realistic and justifiable.

7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 since 2018 while the opposite party no.2 also filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, which is still pending for consideration. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 next submits that the revisionist is having a degree of graduation and she earns handsome money by taking tuitions.

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, therefore, the 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 revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and as per the settled law, the opposite party no.2 cannot shirk from his pious liabilities 3 CRLR No. 2009 of 2024 for maintaining his legally wedded wife.

10. With regard to issue of separate living of revisionist from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2, the trial court has recorded categorical finding for coming to the conclusion that the revisionist is living separately from opposite party no.2 with sufficient cause. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

11. It is undisputed fact also that during the course of trial opposite party no.2 has admitted himself that he has a big cultivator having 70 bighas of agricultural land and has sufficient means of earnings, meaning thereby his total salary would be at least Rs. 30,000/- .

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh (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.

13. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the total amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the trial court at Rs. 6,000/- in favour of revisionist is too meagre amount and the same deserves to be enhanced to total Rs. 7500/- per month from the date of the impugned judgment.

14. Consequently, judgment and order dated 14th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 43 of 2019 (Smt. Meenu Tyagi vs. Gaurav Tyagi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Nagal, District-Saharanpur is modified to the extent that now 4 CRLR No. 2009 of 2024 the opposite party no.2 shall pay Rs. 7500/- per month to the revisionist in place of Rs. 6000/- per months towards maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned judgment. Since the amount of arrears, it would be too harsh for opposite party no.2 to pay the same in one stroke. Therefore, this Court directs the opposite party no.2 to pay the total arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in 10 equal monthly installments. The first monthly installment shall commence from 5th October, 2025.

15. 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.

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

17. There shall be no order as to costs. September 18, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pundir, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 43 of 2019 (Smt. Meenu Tyagi vs. Gaurav Tyagi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Nagal, District-Saharanpur insofar as it awards Rs. 6,000/- per month the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned order. The revisionist by means of the present revision also prays for enhancement of the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment.

3. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is no doubt true that during the course of trial, the opposite party no.2 has sufficient means of earnings as having agricultural land (70 bighas), meaning thereby that his total income was approximately Rs. 30000/- per month. However, the trial court while partly allowing the application of the revisionist filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has awarded Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, which is too meagre and not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. 2 CRLR No. 2009 of 2024

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that considering the above facts and circumstances, the amount of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment may be enhanced to some extent after modifying the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

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

6. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have 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. 6,000/- per month in favour of revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned order, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. They further submit that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionist is reasonable, realistic and justifiable.

7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 since 2018 while the opposite party no.2 also filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, which is still pending for consideration. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 next submits that the revisionist is having a degree of graduation and she earns handsome money by taking tuitions.

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, therefore, the 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 revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and as per the settled law, the opposite party no.2 cannot shirk from his pious liabilities 3 CRLR No. 2009 of 2024 for maintaining his legally wedded wife.

10. With regard to issue of separate living of revisionist from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2, the trial court has recorded categorical finding for coming to the conclusion that the revisionist is living separately from opposite party no.2 with sufficient cause. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

11. It is undisputed fact also that during the course of trial opposite party no.2 has admitted himself that he has a big cultivator having 70 bighas of agricultural land and has sufficient means of earnings, meaning thereby his total salary would be at least Rs. 30,000/- .

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh (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.

13. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the total amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the trial court at Rs. 6,000/- in favour of revisionist is too meagre amount and the same deserves to be enhanced to total Rs. 7500/- per month from the date of the impugned judgment.

14. Consequently, judgment and order dated 14th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 43 of 2019 (Smt. Meenu Tyagi vs. Gaurav Tyagi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Nagal, District-Saharanpur is modified to the extent that now 4 CRLR No. 2009 of 2024 the opposite party no.2 shall pay Rs. 7500/- per month to the revisionist in place of Rs. 6000/- per months towards maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned judgment. Since the amount of arrears, it would be too harsh for opposite party no.2 to pay the same in one stroke. Therefore, this Court directs the opposite party no.2 to pay the total arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in 10 equal monthly installments. The first monthly installment shall commence from 5th October, 2025.

15. 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.

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

17. There shall be no order as to costs. September 18, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad