High Court · 2025

By the impugned judgment and order, learned court below has allowed maintenance to the applicant Smt. Krishna to the tune of Rs.5500/- per month from the date of filing of application dated 26.11.2019 upto date of judgment dated 25.08.2023, and thereafter at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month as future maintenance. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. Revisionist Sanjay Kumar and respondent No.2 Smt. Krishna are present in person accompanied by their respective counsels, they were interrogated by the court regarding possibility of their reunion, although respondent No.2 expressed her willingness to reside with the revisionist at his parental place, yet the revisionist has expressed apprehension that she would pickup quarrel with him and family members, if she start residing with him at his parental place, she may engage in altercation with his family members and create un-present situation in the house. Keeping in view her past conduct, he also stated that she was not ready to live with his parents from very beginning and would always exert pressure on him to live separately, but he is not in a position to leave his parents and siblings. As the parties are not in a state of agreement to reunite, it would be in fitness of things to hear and decide the present criminal revision on merits. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is admitted fact that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized on 28.11.2004 with respondent No.2, the original applicant according to hindu rites and rituals. Marriage of the revisionist and respondent No.2 was dowry less as both the spouses were having love affair long before their marriage and this was infact the love cum arranged marriage. The respondent No.2 is living separately from the revisionist since 27.01.2019 on her own sweet will and choice, she was never thrown away by the revisionist from his house. The parties are not having any issue born out of their wedlock, the respondent No.2 has levelled false allegations of dowry, matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture against the revisionist. Revisionist live alongwith respondent No.2 at her parental place since 18.07.2007 to 18.10.2018 in regular manner and that on 18.10.2018 he went back to his parental place to live with his parents, respondent No.2 got enraged and started abusing and misbehaving with the parents and she used to threatened the revisionist to implicate him in a false case. On 25.01.2019, respondent No.2 came to the place of the revisionist alongwith him and on 26.01.2019 when revisionist was not present in his house she went to her parental place alongwith her father and brother Kuldeep after taking his goods with her, when he went to the place of his in-laws on 27.01.2019, the respondent No.2 and her family members abused and threatened him with life, they turned him out from their place and respondent No.2 refused to live with him. Revisionist has been taking care of respondent No.2 till they lived together. A compromise also entered between them on 15.07.2007, which bears signature of the revisionist before police at his parental place. He used to take care of his wife also inlaws between 15.07.2007 to January, 2019 during the period he used to reside at the place of her in-laws. He next submitted that learned court below has fixed an exorbitant amount of maintenance in the impugned judgment and order withing fixing the monthly income of the revisionist and only on the basis of bald assertions of respondent No.2 regarding his source of income. He worked as PTI (PT Instructor) at K.M. Public School, Station Road, Kiraoli (Agra) from 26.10.2020 to 10.04.2021, but his services were terminated during the period of outbreak Covid-19 Pandemic and he is not employed anywhere since then. He earns his livelihood by collecting milks from villagers and selling the same in his shop at village. Revisionist has to take care of his old parents and four sisters from his meagre income, the two Bigha agricultural land ancestral property of the family is recorded in the name of his father and the agricultural income generated from this land is hardly sufficient to meet out the expenses of his parents and siblings itself and he does not derive any benefit from the said land. He further submitted that respondent No.2 took away all her ornaments and valuable alongwith her when she left her matrimonial home. The impugned judgment and order is based on conjecture and surmises and is against the strength of evidence on record and same is not sustainable. He further submitted that inspite of best effort revisionist could not get any other job, even the house in which he lives is owned by his father, he has not separate property. Respondent No.2 levelled wild allegations against him and affect his self-respect. The spouse have been issueless even after twenty years of their marriage. Leaned court below has not considered the evidence tendered by the revisionist while deciding the maintenance case against him, prior to this final order a sum of Rs.5,500/- was awarded as interim maintenance vide order dated 28.04.2022 passed by learned court below and he has been paying interim maintenance as directed the learned court below. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that revisionist has not deposited or paid even arrear of interim maintenance and he has paid nothing towards impugned judgment and order to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is still ready to go and live with the revisionist, but he has declined her offer to live together with him only to avoid his obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife. This is wrong to say that she intends to live together with her husband at some other place separately as she has expressed her willingness before the court itself that she is ready to live at the parental place of the revisionist. He has always ill-treated and misbehaved with respondent No.2 during the period when they lived together either at the place of revisionist or at the parental place of respondent No.2. Learned court below has given a categorical finding in the impugned judgment and order that revisionist is able to maintain his wife, he has sufficient sources of income, he is possessed sufficient financial resources, he is able-bodied man and he is under obligation to maintain his wife. The opposite parties has been negligent to maintain his wife, therefore, he is liable to maintain his wife. The opposite party has filed his statement of assets and liabilities before this court, in which he has stated that he has taken a loan of monthly loan of Rs.1542/- for purchasing a fridge and pays Rs.6210/- towards installments of loan for purchasing a scooter, therefore, he pays Rs.7752/- towards repayment of loan.He lastly submitted that when revisionist was able to pay Rs.5,500/- per month as interim maintenance only a increase of Rs.1,500/- in said amount of maintenance and that too from the judgment dated 25.08.2023 is a small enhancement and it cannot be said that revisionist is not in a position to pay that amount. From perusal of record it appears that while passing the impugned order, learned court below has placed reliance on statement of the applicant that revisionist was earning Rs.15,000/- per months salary from the school where he was posted as PTI. However, from perusal of certificate issued by Principal of the school concerned it appears that he was employed in said school as PTI only for a period of six months from 26.10.2020 to 10.04.2021 and at present he is not employed in that school. There is no assertion or evidence that he is employed any where else, therefore, due to discontinuation of his job as teacher his monthly income has reduced substantially and he is stated to have lone son of his father, but he had real sisters in the family. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, evidence and material on record, I find that although there is no substantial error in the impugned judgment and order, the learned court below has not considered the fact that revisionist was no longer working as a PTI in the school, at the time of passing of judgment. Therefore, a slight deduction in maintenance is called for while striking a balance in the interest of contesting parties, consequently it is directed that the amount of maintenance awarded from the date of filing of application to date of judgment is reduced from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.4,500/- and from the date of judgment it is reduced from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.5,500/- per month. The other conditions or directions issued in the impugned order are not interfered herein. The revision is partly allowed, in the manner and impugned maintenance stands modified accordingly. The arrear will be calculated accordingly to this modified order. Any amount paid earlier by the revisionist shall be liable to be adjustment towards arrear of maintenance. The arrear of maintenance will be deposited subject to modified order in five monthly installments and first installment will be payable on 10th of March, 2025 and remaining amount will be paid in succeeding months, failing which learned court below has liberty to proceed against the revisionist for realization of the amount of maintenance in accordance with law. The revisionist will pay the amount of Rs.1000/- as cost imposed by this Court on earlier order today itself to the respondent No.2. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

By the impugned judgment and order, learned court below has allowed maintenance to the applicant Smt. Krishna to the tune of Rs.5500/- per month from the date of filing of application dated 26.11.2019 upto date of judgment dated 25.08.2023, and thereafter at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month as future maintenance. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. Revisionist Sanjay Kumar and respondent No.2 Smt. Krishna are present in person accompanied by their respective counsels, they were interrogated by the court regarding possibility of their reunion, although respondent No.2 expressed her willingness to reside with the revisionist at his parental place, yet the revisionist has expressed apprehension that she would pickup quarrel with him and family members, if she start residing with him at his parental place, she may engage in altercation with his family members and create un-present situation in the house. Keeping in view her past conduct, he also stated that she was not ready to live with his parents from very beginning and would always exert pressure on him to live separately, but he is not in a position to leave his parents and siblings. As the parties are not in a state of agreement to reunite, it would be in fitness of things to hear and decide the present criminal revision on merits. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is admitted fact that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized on 28.11.2004 with respondent No.2, the original applicant according to hindu rites and rituals. Marriage of the revisionist and respondent No.2 was dowry less as both the spouses were having love affair long before their marriage and this was infact the love cum arranged marriage. The respondent No.2 is living separately from the revisionist since 27.01.2019 on her own sweet will and choice, she was never thrown away by the revisionist from his house. The parties are not having any issue born out of their wedlock, the respondent No.2 has levelled false allegations of dowry, matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture against the revisionist. Revisionist live alongwith respondent No.2 at her parental place since 18.07.2007 to 18.10.2018 in regular manner and that on 18.10.2018 he went back to his parental place to live with his parents, respondent No.2 got enraged and started abusing and misbehaving with the parents and she used to threatened the revisionist to implicate him in a false case. On 25.01.2019, respondent No.2 came to the place of the revisionist alongwith him and on 26.01.2019 when revisionist was not present in his house she went to her parental place alongwith her father and brother Kuldeep after taking his goods with her, when he went to the place of his in-laws on 27.01.2019, the respondent No.2 and her family members abused and threatened him with life, they turned him out from their place and respondent No.2 refused to live with him. Revisionist has been taking care of respondent No.2 till they lived together. A compromise also entered between them on 15.07.2007, which bears signature of the revisionist before police at his parental place. He used to take care of his wife also inlaws between 15.07.2007 to January, 2019 during the period he used to reside at the place of her in-laws. He next submitted that learned court below has fixed an exorbitant amount of maintenance in the impugned judgment and order withing fixing the monthly income of the revisionist and only on the basis of bald assertions of respondent No.2 regarding his source of income. He worked as PTI (PT Instructor) at K.M. Public School, Station Road, Kiraoli (Agra) from 26.10.2020 to 10.04.2021, but his services were terminated during the period of outbreak Covid-19 Pandemic and he is not employed anywhere since then. He earns his livelihood by collecting milks from villagers and selling the same in his shop at village. Revisionist has to take care of his old parents and four sisters from his meagre income, the two Bigha agricultural land ancestral property of the family is recorded in the name of his father and the agricultural income generated from this land is hardly sufficient to meet out the expenses of his parents and siblings itself and he does not derive any benefit from the said land. He further submitted that respondent No.2 took away all her ornaments and valuable alongwith her when she left her matrimonial home. The impugned judgment and order is based on conjecture and surmises and is against the strength of evidence on record and same is not sustainable. He further submitted that inspite of best effort revisionist could not get any other job, even the house in which he lives is owned by his father, he has not separate property. Respondent No.2 levelled wild allegations against him and affect his self-respect. The spouse have been issueless even after twenty years of their marriage. Leaned court below has not considered the evidence tendered by the revisionist while deciding the maintenance case against him, prior to this final order a sum of Rs.5,500/- was awarded as interim maintenance vide order dated 28.04.2022 passed by learned court below and he has been paying interim maintenance as directed the learned court below. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that revisionist has not deposited or paid even arrear of interim maintenance and he has paid nothing towards impugned judgment and order to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is still ready to go and live with the revisionist, but he has declined her offer to live together with him only to avoid his obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife. This is wrong to say that she intends to live together with her husband at some other place separately as she has expressed her willingness before the court itself that she is ready to live at the parental place of the revisionist. He has always ill-treated and misbehaved with respondent No.2 during the period when they lived together either at the place of revisionist or at the parental place of respondent No.2. Learned court below has given a categorical finding in the impugned judgment and order that revisionist is able to maintain his wife, he has sufficient sources of income, he is possessed sufficient financial resources, he is able-bodied man and he is under obligation to maintain his wife. The opposite parties has been negligent to maintain his wife, therefore, he is liable to maintain his wife. The opposite party has filed his statement of assets and liabilities before this court, in which he has stated that he has taken a loan of monthly loan of Rs.1542/- for purchasing a fridge and pays Rs.6210/- towards installments of loan for purchasing a scooter, therefore, he pays Rs.7752/- towards repayment of loan.He lastly submitted that when revisionist was able to pay Rs.5,500/- per month as interim maintenance only a increase of Rs.1,500/- in said amount of maintenance and that too from the judgment dated 25.08.2023 is a small enhancement and it cannot be said that revisionist is not in a position to pay that amount. From perusal of record it appears that while passing the impugned order, learned court below has placed reliance on statement of the applicant that revisionist was earning Rs.15,000/- per months salary from the school where he was posted as PTI. However, from perusal of certificate issued by Principal of the school concerned it appears that he was employed in said school as PTI only for a period of six months from 26.10.2020 to 10.04.2021 and at present he is not employed in that school. There is no assertion or evidence that he is employed any where else, therefore, due to discontinuation of his job as teacher his monthly income has reduced substantially and he is stated to have lone son of his father, but he had real sisters in the family. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, evidence and material on record, I find that although there is no substantial error in the impugned judgment and order, the learned court below has not considered the fact that revisionist was no longer working as a PTI in the school, at the time of passing of judgment. Therefore, a slight deduction in maintenance is called for while striking a balance in the interest of contesting parties, consequently it is directed that the amount of maintenance awarded from the date of filing of application to date of judgment is reduced from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.4,500/- and from the date of judgment it is reduced from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.5,500/- per month. The other conditions or directions issued in the impugned order are not interfered herein. The revision is partly allowed, in the manner and impugned maintenance stands modified accordingly. The arrear will be calculated accordingly to this modified order. Any amount paid earlier by the revisionist shall be liable to be adjustment towards arrear of maintenance. The arrear of maintenance will be deposited subject to modified order in five monthly installments and first installment will be payable on 10th of March, 2025 and remaining amount will be paid in succeeding months, failing which learned court below has liberty to proceed against the revisionist for realization of the amount of maintenance in accordance with law. The revisionist will pay the amount of Rs.1000/- as cost imposed by this Court on earlier order today itself to the respondent No.2. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad