Nagma Khatoon and Another v. Meherban Alam), filed under Section
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3544 of 2024 Meharban Alam State Of U.P. And 2 Others Versus .....Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Madhava Nand Shukla, Vijay Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Faisal Khan Singh Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Case called in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the
Legal Reasoning
opposite party no.2 although, name of Sri Mohammad Faisal Khan, Advocate is shown in the list. Hence, this criminal revision is being decided after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA. 2. Heard Sri Madhava Nand Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no. 2, Muzaffar Nagar, in Case No. 515 of 2022 (Nagma Khatoon and Another Vs. Meherban Alam), filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 (minor daughter) from the date of filing of the application. 4. The sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is employed as Siksha Mitra and getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month, this facts has also been admitted by the opposite party no.2 in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the trial court while granting the maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- has not been considered the income of the revisionist which is arbitrary in nature and 2 CRLR No. 3544 of 2024 against the mandates of Hon'ble Apex Court in In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129. Except no other arguments has been raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding other issues. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist is working as Siksha Mitra apart from this, revisionist running a Madarsa at his home and have 20 bigha agricultural land, hence the amount fixed by learned court below cannot be said to be excessive or not in proportionate to the income of the revisionist. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. 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, it is admitted that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his daughter. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist regarding separate living without any reason is concerned, the trial court categorically recorded its finding regarding separate living which cannot be interfered at this stage, because it is a findings of fact and this Court being a revisional court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law, but it appears from impugned judgement, opposite party no.2 is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. So far as the income the revisionist is concerned, from the perusal of the judgment it transpires that the revisionist is living with his father, mother and one sister in the same house which contains five rooms and in this very house he is running a Madarsa and 20 bigha agricultural land in the name of his father, except there is no record to show that he earns much amount. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the father of the revisionist is almost blind, having only 3 to 4 % vision, it means entire liability to maintain the family is upon the revisionist. If it is assume that except the income of the salary, revisionist also earns from the agricultural land and Madara. The agricultural land is in ownership of his father but it is also admitted fact that his father having merely 3 to 4 % vision. The income from 20 bighas agricultural lands assume of Rs. 2, 00,000/- per annum and the salary of the revisionist of Rs. 1,10,000/- per 3 CRLR No. 3544 of 2024 annum, thus, the total income of the revisionist comes Rs. 3,10,000/- per annum, meaning thereby his total monthly income approximately Rs. 26,000/- per month. 7. Keeping in view of the monthly income of the revisionist as the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband comes to Rs. 6,500/-. 8. This court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance has been fixed by the court below is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and keeping in view of the admitted salary of the revisionist and other liabilities, the order of the trial court deserved to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs. 4000/- from Rs. 6000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and to Rs. 2500/- from Rs. 4000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) payable from the date of application. 9. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 6500/- from Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the application. 10. The amount received, if any, by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment. 11. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be paid into 10 equal monthly installments. The first installment will be paid on October, 15, 2025 and thereafter revisionist shall continue to pay the remaining installments on fifteenth day of each month. In addition to the payment of installments of arrears of maintenance, the revisionist shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 2500/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) granted by this Court as aforesaid. September 19, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad