State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, the 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 revisionists under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Agra in Case No. 1042 of 2021 (Smt. Rachana Kumshwaha Vs. Rambabu @ Mohit Kushwaha), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by the revisionists, has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the revisionist no. 1/wife and Rs. 5000/-to the revisionist no.2/daughter towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. The revisionists has also prayed by means of the instant application that considering the net income of opposite party no.2, the amount of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionists be enhanced from the date of filing of the instant application.

3. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party no. 2 is working as Technician Grade Ist in Railway Workshop, Reni Gunda, Andhra Pradesh and getting monthly salary of Rs. 66,707/-, as is admitted by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court and the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionists to the tune of Rs. 8000/- per month in total, which is meagre and not commensurate with the net income of the opposite party no. 2, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the 2 CRLR No. 2144 of 2024 case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, as well such amount of maintenance allowance is insufficient to meet out the revisionist's day to day expenses like food, medical expenses etc.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that considering the present inflation and above circumstances, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified while enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionists.

5. 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. 8,000/- per month in total in favour of the revionists from the date of the application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that keeping in view the fact that the opposite party no.2 has also the liability of his old parents, who are suffering from old age ailments, the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month in total from the date of application cannot be said to be meagre.

7. After arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State, when this Court is proceeding to enhance the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment by the trial court, keeping in view the net income of the opposite party no.2 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 comes up with a prayer that considering the whole liabilities of the opposite party no.2 including his old parents, except his wife i.e. revisionist and daughter, if Rs. 5,000/- per month is enhanced, then in that circumstance, the same shall be paid by him easily without any fault.

8. To the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the revisionists has no objection and agreed with the same.

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 is of the considered opinion that interest of 3 CRLR No. 2144 of 2024 substantial justice would be served if the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month in total from the date of impugned judgment is enhanced to Rs. 13,000/- from Rs. 8,000/- in total.

10. Consequently, judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Agra in Case No. 1042 of 2021 (Smt. Rachana Kumshwaha Vs. Rambabu @ Mohit Kushwaha), under Section 125 Cr.P.C is modified to the extent that now the opposite party no.2 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to revisionist no.1 (wife) in place of Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs. 8000/- per month in place of Rs. 5000/- to the revisionist no. 2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

11. Since it would be too harsh for opposite party no.2 to pay arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in one stroke, this Court therefore, provides that the same shall be paid by the revisionist in 10 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 15th November, 2025.

12. 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.

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

14. There shall be no order as to cost. October 9, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, the 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 revisionists under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Agra in Case No. 1042 of 2021 (Smt. Rachana Kumshwaha Vs. Rambabu @ Mohit Kushwaha), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by the revisionists, has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the revisionist no. 1/wife and Rs. 5000/-to the revisionist no.2/daughter towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. The revisionists has also prayed by means of the instant application that considering the net income of opposite party no.2, the amount of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionists be enhanced from the date of filing of the instant application.

3. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party no. 2 is working as Technician Grade Ist in Railway Workshop, Reni Gunda, Andhra Pradesh and getting monthly salary of Rs. 66,707/-, as is admitted by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court and the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionists to the tune of Rs. 8000/- per month in total, which is meagre and not commensurate with the net income of the opposite party no. 2, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the 2 CRLR No. 2144 of 2024 case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, as well such amount of maintenance allowance is insufficient to meet out the revisionist's day to day expenses like food, medical expenses etc.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that considering the present inflation and above circumstances, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified while enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionists.

5. 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. 8,000/- per month in total in favour of the revionists from the date of the application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that keeping in view the fact that the opposite party no.2 has also the liability of his old parents, who are suffering from old age ailments, the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month in total from the date of application cannot be said to be meagre.

7. After arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State, when this Court is proceeding to enhance the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded under the impugned judgment by the trial court, keeping in view the net income of the opposite party no.2 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 comes up with a prayer that considering the whole liabilities of the opposite party no.2 including his old parents, except his wife i.e. revisionist and daughter, if Rs. 5,000/- per month is enhanced, then in that circumstance, the same shall be paid by him easily without any fault.

8. To the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the revisionists has no objection and agreed with the same.

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 is of the considered opinion that interest of 3 CRLR No. 2144 of 2024 substantial justice would be served if the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month in total from the date of impugned judgment is enhanced to Rs. 13,000/- from Rs. 8,000/- in total.

10. Consequently, judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Agra in Case No. 1042 of 2021 (Smt. Rachana Kumshwaha Vs. Rambabu @ Mohit Kushwaha), under Section 125 Cr.P.C is modified to the extent that now the opposite party no.2 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to revisionist no.1 (wife) in place of Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs. 8000/- per month in place of Rs. 5000/- to the revisionist no. 2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

11. Since it would be too harsh for opposite party no.2 to pay arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in one stroke, this Court therefore, provides that the same shall be paid by the revisionist in 10 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 15th November, 2025.

12. 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.

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

14. There shall be no order as to cost. October 9, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad