State of U.P. and Another v. Party

2. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 5th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.1113 of 2020 (Smt. Neera Singh Vs. Tribhuwan Pal Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh, whereby the trial court while allowing interim stay application filed by opposite party no.2 in the above case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards monthly interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stressed that it is no doubt true that earlier the revisionist was working as Planning Engineer in Anchor Gas Private Limited Mill, Vaapi (Gujrat) and is getting salary of Rs. 97,350/- per month but in the 2018, due to his absence from duty qua various litigation instituted against him by opposite party no.2, his said job has been terminated vide termination letter dated 16th January, 2018, a copy of which has been brought on record at page no.61 of the paper book and such fact has also been mentioned impugned order awarding interim maintenance allowance. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn the attention of the Court to page no. 104 of the paper book which is 2 CRLR No. 2267 of 2024 the affidavit of the revisionist filed before the trial court 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 in which the income of the revisionist has been shown as "Nill" because at present he is not in job. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court while awarding interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- which is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the next income of the revisionist and also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel the revisionist submits that since the trial court has passed the impugned interim order without appreciating the evidence available on record, such order is liable to be set aside.

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 order and awarding Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards interim monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The amount of interim monthly maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant in any manner as the trial court has rightly considered the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs. 97,350/- per month .

7. 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 the revisionist before the trial court has throughout stated that he is not in job and his job has been terminated in the year 2018 due to various litigation instituted by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist has also filed his Income Tax Returns before the trial court in which the income of the revisionist has been shown as "Nill" but the trial court has not considered the said aspect of the matter and has considered his monthly income as Rs. 97,350/- per month.

8. Keeping in mind the fact that at present the revisionist is not in job, this Court is of the prima faice view that the amount of interim monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned order to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month seems to be excessive and is liable to 3 CRLR No. 2267 of 2024 be reduced.

9. Consequently, impugned order dated 5th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.1113 of 2020 (Smt. Neera Singh Vs. Tribhuwan Pal Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh is modified to the extent now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 8,000/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application.

10. However, this Court may record that since the impugned order is an interim order passed on the interim stay application filed in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which are pending consideration before the court below for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court.

11. 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 interim 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.

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

13. There shall be no order as to costs. October 9, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 5th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.1113 of 2020 (Smt. Neera Singh Vs. Tribhuwan Pal Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh, whereby the trial court while allowing interim stay application filed by opposite party no.2 in the above case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards monthly interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stressed that it is no doubt true that earlier the revisionist was working as Planning Engineer in Anchor Gas Private Limited Mill, Vaapi (Gujrat) and is getting salary of Rs. 97,350/- per month but in the 2018, due to his absence from duty qua various litigation instituted against him by opposite party no.2, his said job has been terminated vide termination letter dated 16th January, 2018, a copy of which has been brought on record at page no.61 of the paper book and such fact has also been mentioned impugned order awarding interim maintenance allowance. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn the attention of the Court to page no. 104 of the paper book which is 2 CRLR No. 2267 of 2024 the affidavit of the revisionist filed before the trial court 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 in which the income of the revisionist has been shown as "Nill" because at present he is not in job. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court while awarding interim maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- which is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the next income of the revisionist and also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel the revisionist submits that since the trial court has passed the impugned interim order without appreciating the evidence available on record, such order is liable to be set aside.

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 order and awarding Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards interim monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The amount of interim monthly maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant in any manner as the trial court has rightly considered the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs. 97,350/- per month .

7. 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 the revisionist before the trial court has throughout stated that he is not in job and his job has been terminated in the year 2018 due to various litigation instituted by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist has also filed his Income Tax Returns before the trial court in which the income of the revisionist has been shown as "Nill" but the trial court has not considered the said aspect of the matter and has considered his monthly income as Rs. 97,350/- per month.

8. Keeping in mind the fact that at present the revisionist is not in job, this Court is of the prima faice view that the amount of interim monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned order to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month seems to be excessive and is liable to 3 CRLR No. 2267 of 2024 be reduced.

9. Consequently, impugned order dated 5th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.1113 of 2020 (Smt. Neera Singh Vs. Tribhuwan Pal Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh is modified to the extent now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 8,000/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application.

10. However, this Court may record that since the impugned order is an interim order passed on the interim stay application filed in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which are pending consideration before the court below for final adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court.

11. 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 interim 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.

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

13. There shall be no order as to costs. October 9, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad