Anshul Agarwal v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

: Anirudh Sharma, Neelabh Srivastava : G.A., Ram Tiwari, Vicky Rastogi Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Vijay Shankar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 115 of 2021 (Smt. Sandi Agarwal and another vs. Anshul Agarwal) U/s 125 Cr.P.C. passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Moradabnad directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 10000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 3000/- per month to opposite party no.3/ Anvi Agarwal (minor) as interim maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 02.02.2021.

Learned counsel for the revisionist states that his marriage was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 08.05.2018 and out of their wedlock one girl was born. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that opposite party no.2 along with her minor daughter live separately without any plausible reason. It is further submitted that the amount awarded by the trial court to the tune of Rs. 13000/- in total is very excessive as the revisionist have other liabilities of his family and the trial court without considering these facts have passed the impugned order.

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that this Court on 03.01.2025 was directed to the revisionist to deposit half of the amount of arrears of maintenance and an interim protection was also granted to the revisionist but the direction granted by this Court was not complied with till date which shows that the revisionist is not ready to obey the order of this Court. It is further submitted that on account of addition demand of dowry of Rs.10 lac, opposite party no.2 was being tortured and due to this very reason and ill-treated behaviour of her in-laws, she left her matrimonial house. It is also submitted that opposite party no.2 has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. It is also submitted that the revisionist is working as a Manager in Thomas Cook India Ltd. Puna at Maharashtra who earns more than Rs. 2 CRLR No. 2386 of 2024 51000/- per month and lastly it is submitted that keeping in mind the present scenario, inflation and the cost of living, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive. It is therefore, submits that since there is no illegality in the judgment impugned and this revision being devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and argument advanced by the counsels for the parties and also from the perusal of record including the impugned order, it is admitted fact that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist who live separately with her minor daughter due to negligence on the part of the revisionist and the findings categorically recorded by the trial court which cannot be said to be incorrect in view of the fact mentioned in the judgment. 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 in place of findings recorded by the trial court. There is no documentary evidence on record to show whether the opposite party no.2 has any source of income. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned at page-73 there is a salary slip in which the gross-income mentioned of Rs. 51032/- per month which was taken into consideration by the trial court. In Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, therefore, as per the principal laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra) the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband. In the present case, the revisionist earns Rs. 51000/- per month therefore, in view of the above guidelines, the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get maintenance allowance of Rs.12650/- per month, which is almost similar to the amount granted by the trial court i.e. Rs.13000/- per month, hence at this point, the judgment and order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court.

So far as the direction of the trial court that the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get maintenance from the date of filing of application is concerned, this Court may record in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another and Kulbhushan Kumar (supras) the Apex Court has clearly observed that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of filing of application, therefore, the learned trial court did not commit any illegality or infirmity while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2024.

Accordingly, the present criminal revision devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. September 16, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad