State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for Revisionist(s)

No. 407 of 2022 (Smt. Triveni vs. Satish), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Junawai District Sambhal whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay 3000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of application till the date of the impugned order and it is also directed that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to his wife i.e. opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist solely contended that opposite party no.2 is leaglly wedded wife of the revisionist and he is ready to pay the maintenance allowance but the amount awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist and he is working as labour. He also rely upon the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. It is next submitted that the amount awarded by the trial court is excessive as the revisionist is a labourer from where he earns Rs. 5000/- per month and having no other permanent source of 2 CRLR No. 2459 of 2024 income. A certificate regarding his income is annexed at page no. 34 issued by Uttar Pradesh Shashan except that no argument has been raised on behalf of the revisionist. The said fact has not been considered by the court below while deciding the maintenance application.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as aforesaid and contended that revisionist is an able bodied person and it is his pious duty to maintain his wife and considering the current inflation, the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/- cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity hence this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned court below dated 29.03.2024, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife. However it is pious duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife, but there should be a balance between the income and liability of the husband.

7. On perusal of the aforesaid findings returned by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the trial court has recorded categorical finding of facts on the above issues. 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.

8. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, the revisionist claims himself before the trial court that he is a labourer. Thus, in that circumstance if it is considered that he is a labourer, then he would at least earn Rs. 600/- per day, meaning thereby that his total monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- per month.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 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, 3 CRLR No. 2459 of 2024 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.

10. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases , hence, it is reduced to Rs. 4,500 from Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and the same shall be payable from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

11. Consequently, judgment and order dated 29th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No. 407 of 2022 (Smt. Triveni vs. Satish), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is modified and the revision is partly allowed to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

12. However considering the fact that the revisionist is a labour, he is unable to pay total arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application till date in one stroke.

13. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance, if any, is concerned, it may be divided into 10 equal monthly installments. The first installment will fall on October, 15, 2025 and thereafter revisionist will continue to pay other installments in fifteen day of each the month. September 23, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

No. 407 of 2022 (Smt. Triveni vs. Satish), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Junawai District Sambhal whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay 3000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of application till the date of the impugned order and it is also directed that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to his wife i.e. opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist solely contended that opposite party no.2 is leaglly wedded wife of the revisionist and he is ready to pay the maintenance allowance but the amount awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist and he is working as labour. He also rely upon the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. It is next submitted that the amount awarded by the trial court is excessive as the revisionist is a labourer from where he earns Rs. 5000/- per month and having no other permanent source of 2 CRLR No. 2459 of 2024 income. A certificate regarding his income is annexed at page no. 34 issued by Uttar Pradesh Shashan except that no argument has been raised on behalf of the revisionist. The said fact has not been considered by the court below while deciding the maintenance application.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as aforesaid and contended that revisionist is an able bodied person and it is his pious duty to maintain his wife and considering the current inflation, the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/- cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity hence this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned court below dated 29.03.2024, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife. However it is pious duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife, but there should be a balance between the income and liability of the husband.

7. On perusal of the aforesaid findings returned by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the trial court has recorded categorical finding of facts on the above issues. 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.

8. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, the revisionist claims himself before the trial court that he is a labourer. Thus, in that circumstance if it is considered that he is a labourer, then he would at least earn Rs. 600/- per day, meaning thereby that his total monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- per month.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 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, 3 CRLR No. 2459 of 2024 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.

10. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases , hence, it is reduced to Rs. 4,500 from Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and the same shall be payable from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

11. Consequently, judgment and order dated 29th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No. 407 of 2022 (Smt. Triveni vs. Satish), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is modified and the revision is partly allowed to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

12. However considering the fact that the revisionist is a labour, he is unable to pay total arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application till date in one stroke.

13. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance, if any, is concerned, it may be divided into 10 equal monthly installments. The first installment will fall on October, 15, 2025 and thereafter revisionist will continue to pay other installments in fifteen day of each the month. September 23, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad