Smt. Nidhi Yadav v. Deepak Yadav) under Section
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2668 of 2024 Deepak Yadav State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhishek Kumar Saroj, Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Srivastava, Birendra Kaushik, G.A. Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Birendra Kaushik, 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 revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, in Case No. 436 of 2021/CNR No. UPMT020012342021 (Smt. Nidhi Yadav Vs. Deepak Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali, District- Mathura, whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (son) i.e. total Rs. 12,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is no doubt true that the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, whereas opposite party no.3 is his real son. It is also no doubt true that during the course of trial before the trial court, the revisionist was doing business, while running a shop along with his father but the said shop had been demolished by the National Highway Authority for the purposes of widening of road. Some photographs of the demolished shop have also been enclosed along with the affidavit accompanying the present criminal revision which is at page 69 of the paper book. 4. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of total 2 CRLR No. 2668 of 2024 Rs. 12,000/- per month is too excessive and exorbitant and is not incommensurate with the real income of the revisionist. The trial court while awarding the said monthly maintenance allowance has not considered the fact that after demolition of shop, the revisionist has no source of income and he somehow earns few money for his parents and also for his livelihood. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that considering the above facts and circumstances, the amount of maintenance allowance by the trial court under the impugned judgment may be reduced to some extent, as the revisionist is ready and willing to pay the monthly maintenance allowance to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as same has to be fixed by this Court. 5. Except the above contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has not stated anything else. 6. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 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 favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 submits that before the trial court, opposite party no.2 has produced the Income Tax Return filed by the revisionist for the financial year 2022-2023, as per which the total income of the revisionist is shown as Rs.4,81,260/- per year, which comes out to approximately Rs.40,000/- per month and at present his monthly income would have been increased much more. In that circumstance, looking to the present scenario and inflation, the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 8. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 submits that since the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not committed any error in the eyes of law, therefore, present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 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 finds that it is an admitted case that the opposite party nos. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, whereas opposite party no.3 is his real son and as per the settled law, the revisionist 3 CRLR No. 2668 of 2024 cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party no.2 has any source of income so that she may maintain her son and also herself. 10. While deciding issue no.2 the trial court has recorded categorical finding of fact to come to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist along with his son with sufficient cause. Such categorical findings recorded by the trial court cannot be turned down by this Court unless this Court finds that the same is totally perverse in the eyes of law. 11. 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. 12. Now this Court comes to the solitary submission advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the total amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is excessive and not incommensurate with the exact monthly income of the revisionist. 13. For deciding the said issue, this Court may record that it is admitted by the revisionist himself that he is having degree of M.B.A. and earlier he was running a shop along with his father from which he earned money and also as per Income Tax Return filed by him for the financial year 2022-2023 as has been produced by opposite party no.2 before the trial court, the total yearly income of the revisionist was Rs.4,81,260/- which comes out to approximately Rs.40,000/- per month but this fact can also not be ignored that the shop, which was running by the revisionist, has been demolished. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation. 15. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, the revisionist, who is an able bodied person and highly educated, having degree of M.B.A., would have earned approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha 4 CRLR No. 2668 of 2024 (Supra) 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, 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. 17. 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 incommensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 40,000/- per month would be total Rs. 10,000/- per month. In such circumstances, the total amount of monthly maintenance allowance i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is excessive and is liable to be reduced. Normally this Court would have remanded the instant matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the trial court for deciding afresh, but looking to the huge pendency before the trial court and also for saving the precious time of the trial court, this Court is proceeding to modify the impugned judgment. 18. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, in Case No. 436 of 2021/CNR No. UPMT020012342021 (Smt. Nidhi Yadav Vs. Deepak Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mathura is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 in place of Rs. 4,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application. Since at present the revisionist has no regular source of income, it would be too harsh for him 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 5th October, 2025. 19. 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. 20. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed. 5 CRLR No. 2668 of 2024
Decision
21. There shall be no order as to costs. September 15, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad