Smt. Medha Shree Sharma and another v. Harsh Kamal Pathak), under Section

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal At Chandausi in Case No. 296 of 2022 (Smt. Medha Shree Sharma and another Vs. Harsh Kamal Pathak), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist who are living apart from him without any sufficient cause. The revisionist is also keeping a son who is school going and he works in a bank and gets salary Rs. 68,723 per month out of which he is to make payment of car loan, EMI for home loan, credit card loan EMI, premium for insurance policy and other expenses and also spends Rs. 2600/- for monthly fee, Rs. 2000/- tuition fee and 1500/- school van. Total Rs. 6100/- per month for education of child who is living with the revisionist. Rs. 15,000/- were also fixed for interim maintenance of wife in case under Section 12 Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 3500/- per month in favour of minor son from the date of application to the date of order and from the date of order Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of minor son living with her. The amount so fixed for maintenance in favour of wife and minor child that is Rs. 22,000/- per month after order is excessive and disproportionate to the income of the revisionist. Since the wife herself is earning Rs. 7000/- per month by teaching, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned 2 CRLR No. 3479 of 2025 trial court and reduce the amount. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the revisionist maltreated opposite party no. 2 and also made false allegation on her character. He also has illicit relationship with some other lady named, Kanika Ghosla which was objected by the opposite party no. 2 that was the reason she was beaten several times and now living separate from him in her maika. The learned trial court has fixed Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife as interim maintenance in case under Section 12 Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act but it was not paid to her as admitted by the revisionist himself during his cross-examination. To maintain her and her son, she makes earning of Rs. 7000/- per month any how on that basis she is not able to maintain herself and minor son. On the other hand, the revisionist works in a bank and gets Rs. 68723/- as per his salary slip for the month of December, 2024. The learned trial court has fixed the amount Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of minor son from the date of order that cannot be said to be excessive since expenses on education of one child are being borne by the revisionist i.e. Rs. 6100/- per month likewise the expenses of education for the child living with wife/opposite party no. 2 is also necessary, therefore, Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of the minor child cannot be said to be more than sufficient. This amount is spent on the education of child living with wife and there is no money fixed by the learned trial court for his up bringing. Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife can also not be said to be more than sufficient for her maintenance and also Rs. 7000/- per month for maintenance of minor child as per status of the revisionist, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be erroneous. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that the marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2014. Two children were born from the wedlock, one is living with the revisionist and other is living with the wife/opposite party no. 2. There is dispute between the parties in relation to one lady Kanika Ghosal who is kept by the revisionist as per allegation made by the opposite party no. 2/wife and when objected she was misbehaved and beaten by the husband/revisionist that is the reason she started living apart from him, therefore, it is sufficient reason for her to live separate from the husband. The revisionist himself has stated about the expenses of education of one child living with him to be Rs. 6100/- per month likewise the expenses on education of other child who is living with mother/opposite party no. 2 are also necessary and possible for which the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month only but no amount has been added for his upbringing. In this way, the amount Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient even though Rs. 7000/- per month being earned by her are also added in it. This amount can also not be said to be disproportionate to the income of the husband who is working in a bank and 3 CRLR No. 3479 of 2025 makes earning Rs. 68,723/- per month and owns a car. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court and it does not warrant interference by this Court as a result this revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. September 15, 2025 Anurag Singh (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal At Chandausi in Case No. 296 of 2022 (Smt. Medha Shree Sharma and another Vs. Harsh Kamal Pathak), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist who are living apart from him without any sufficient cause. The revisionist is also keeping a son who is school going and he works in a bank and gets salary Rs. 68,723 per month out of which he is to make payment of car loan, EMI for home loan, credit card loan EMI, premium for insurance policy and other expenses and also spends Rs. 2600/- for monthly fee, Rs. 2000/- tuition fee and 1500/- school van. Total Rs. 6100/- per month for education of child who is living with the revisionist. Rs. 15,000/- were also fixed for interim maintenance of wife in case under Section 12 Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 3500/- per month in favour of minor son from the date of application to the date of order and from the date of order Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of minor son living with her. The amount so fixed for maintenance in favour of wife and minor child that is Rs. 22,000/- per month after order is excessive and disproportionate to the income of the revisionist. Since the wife herself is earning Rs. 7000/- per month by teaching, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned 2 CRLR No. 3479 of 2025 trial court and reduce the amount. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the revisionist maltreated opposite party no. 2 and also made false allegation on her character. He also has illicit relationship with some other lady named, Kanika Ghosla which was objected by the opposite party no. 2 that was the reason she was beaten several times and now living separate from him in her maika. The learned trial court has fixed Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife as interim maintenance in case under Section 12 Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act but it was not paid to her as admitted by the revisionist himself during his cross-examination. To maintain her and her son, she makes earning of Rs. 7000/- per month any how on that basis she is not able to maintain herself and minor son. On the other hand, the revisionist works in a bank and gets Rs. 68723/- as per his salary slip for the month of December, 2024. The learned trial court has fixed the amount Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of minor son from the date of order that cannot be said to be excessive since expenses on education of one child are being borne by the revisionist i.e. Rs. 6100/- per month likewise the expenses of education for the child living with wife/opposite party no. 2 is also necessary, therefore, Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of the minor child cannot be said to be more than sufficient. This amount is spent on the education of child living with wife and there is no money fixed by the learned trial court for his up bringing. Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife can also not be said to be more than sufficient for her maintenance and also Rs. 7000/- per month for maintenance of minor child as per status of the revisionist, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be erroneous. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that the marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2014. Two children were born from the wedlock, one is living with the revisionist and other is living with the wife/opposite party no. 2. There is dispute between the parties in relation to one lady Kanika Ghosal who is kept by the revisionist as per allegation made by the opposite party no. 2/wife and when objected she was misbehaved and beaten by the husband/revisionist that is the reason she started living apart from him, therefore, it is sufficient reason for her to live separate from the husband. The revisionist himself has stated about the expenses of education of one child living with him to be Rs. 6100/- per month likewise the expenses on education of other child who is living with mother/opposite party no. 2 are also necessary and possible for which the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 7000/- per month only but no amount has been added for his upbringing. In this way, the amount Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of wife cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient even though Rs. 7000/- per month being earned by her are also added in it. This amount can also not be said to be disproportionate to the income of the husband who is working in a bank and 3 CRLR No. 3479 of 2025 makes earning Rs. 68,723/- per month and owns a car. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court and it does not warrant interference by this Court as a result this revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. September 15, 2025 Anurag Singh (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad