Lali Devi Lalita Devi Anr v. Surendra Yadav), under Section

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.1 was solemnized 35 years ago according Hindu rites and ritual and out of their wedlock three children were born. The opposite party no. 1 along with her children is living separately in one part of the revsionist's house. It is next submitted that the revisionist is 65 years old and suffering from old age ailments and also suffering from many diseases, copy of medical report is appended alongwith supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that the revisionist had solemnized the marriage of his daughter/opposite party no. 2, in the year 2019, the marriage invitation card is appended as annexure no. 2 to this revision. He next submitted that due to old age ailments, revisionist has no source of income, he is not in a position to carry out agricultural farming and the court below without considering the age of the revisionist and without any assessment of the income of the revisionist has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- to the opposite party no. 2 (daughter). under Section 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set-aside the order passed by court below and allow the revision.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that it is admitted fact that the revisionist is 65 years old but he is running a dairy business and sufficient money earns through his business and apart from this, the revisionist has five bighas agricultural land and has cultivated crops. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 1 is living separately in one part of the revisionist's house due to neglect on the part of the revisionist itself. It is next submitted that opposite party no.1 has stated in her statement that the revisionist has not provided food, clothing and medicine to her and her children and committed marpeet and torture to her on the behest of his brother. In this regard, she had lodged an FIR against the revisionist. The amount of maintenance awarded by the court below cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

5. 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 court below dated

05.04.2024, admittedly, at the time of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no. 1, age of the revisionist is 50 years and now he is 65 to 68 years old and also suffering from some old age ailments. However, P.W.-2 has stated in his statement that opposite party no. 1 is an illiterate lady and has no source of income, therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and the revisionist has five bighas agricultural land in the name of his father, out of which he is owner of 2.5 bighas land. This Court must take note of the fact that the revisionist is 65 to 68 years old person and the opposite party no. 1 is presently resides in the house of the revisionist. The revisionist also suffers from old age aliments, documents in this regard has been filed along with supplementary affidavit and no evidence on record to show that still he is earning from dairy business. Apart from this, he is owner of 2.5 bigha land which appears the only source of income, from which he cannot earn from more than Rs. 30,000/- per annum, that is when, he himself cultivats that land. Since the income of the revisionist is very meagre, it is well settled principles of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, 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.

6. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance has been fixed by the court below is excessive while taking into account the income of the revisionist. Hence it is reduced to Rs. 2000/- per month from of Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party no.1, payable from the date of filing of application.

7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance as has been awarded in favour of opposite party no.1 (wife) is reduced to Rs. 2000/- per month from Rs. 3000/- from the date of application.

8. So far as the maintenance awarded in favour of the opposite party no.2 (daughter) is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that since she had already married in the year 2019, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from her father after the date of her marriage.

9. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance is concerned, due to opposite party no.1 from the date of filing of application and opposite party no.2 from date of filing of the application up to date of her marriage, it may be divided into12 equal monthly installments. The first installment will fall on 15th October, 2025 and thereafter, revisionist will continue to pay other eleven installments in fifteen day of each month. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.1 was solemnized 35 years ago according Hindu rites and ritual and out of their wedlock three children were born. The opposite party no. 1 along with her children is living separately in one part of the revsionist's house. It is next submitted that the revisionist is 65 years old and suffering from old age ailments and also suffering from many diseases, copy of medical report is appended alongwith supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that the revisionist had solemnized the marriage of his daughter/opposite party no. 2, in the year 2019, the marriage invitation card is appended as annexure no. 2 to this revision. He next submitted that due to old age ailments, revisionist has no source of income, he is not in a position to carry out agricultural farming and the court below without considering the age of the revisionist and without any assessment of the income of the revisionist has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- to the opposite party no. 2 (daughter). under Section 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set-aside the order passed by court below and allow the revision.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that it is admitted fact that the revisionist is 65 years old but he is running a dairy business and sufficient money earns through his business and apart from this, the revisionist has five bighas agricultural land and has cultivated crops. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 1 is living separately in one part of the revisionist's house due to neglect on the part of the revisionist itself. It is next submitted that opposite party no.1 has stated in her statement that the revisionist has not provided food, clothing and medicine to her and her children and committed marpeet and torture to her on the behest of his brother. In this regard, she had lodged an FIR against the revisionist. The amount of maintenance awarded by the court below cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

5. 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 court below dated

05.04.2024, admittedly, at the time of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no. 1, age of the revisionist is 50 years and now he is 65 to 68 years old and also suffering from some old age ailments. However, P.W.-2 has stated in his statement that opposite party no. 1 is an illiterate lady and has no source of income, therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and the revisionist has five bighas agricultural land in the name of his father, out of which he is owner of 2.5 bighas land. This Court must take note of the fact that the revisionist is 65 to 68 years old person and the opposite party no. 1 is presently resides in the house of the revisionist. The revisionist also suffers from old age aliments, documents in this regard has been filed along with supplementary affidavit and no evidence on record to show that still he is earning from dairy business. Apart from this, he is owner of 2.5 bigha land which appears the only source of income, from which he cannot earn from more than Rs. 30,000/- per annum, that is when, he himself cultivats that land. Since the income of the revisionist is very meagre, it is well settled principles of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, 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.

6. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance has been fixed by the court below is excessive while taking into account the income of the revisionist. Hence it is reduced to Rs. 2000/- per month from of Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party no.1, payable from the date of filing of application.

7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance as has been awarded in favour of opposite party no.1 (wife) is reduced to Rs. 2000/- per month from Rs. 3000/- from the date of application.

8. So far as the maintenance awarded in favour of the opposite party no.2 (daughter) is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that since she had already married in the year 2019, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from her father after the date of her marriage.

9. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance is concerned, due to opposite party no.1 from the date of filing of application and opposite party no.2 from date of filing of the application up to date of her marriage, it may be divided into12 equal monthly installments. The first installment will fall on 15th October, 2025 and thereafter, revisionist will continue to pay other eleven installments in fifteen day of each month. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad