High Court · 2025

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist is present.

2. Notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2 but none appeared to represent her in present criminal revision.

3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the final maintenance judgement and order dated 14.5.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 129 of 2017 under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby application for maintenance no. Ka-3 filed by wife/respondent is allowed and maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month on every 10th date of month has been awarded from the date of order and Rs. 5000/- from date of application i.e. from 27.2.2017 to 14.5.2024 on every 10th date of month filing of application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court has granted maintenance to the applicant/respondent no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing of application 27.2.2024 to the date of judgement dated 14.5.2024 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month.

6. The revisionist was earlier teaching in a private school but he was terminated from from his service and thereafter he works as agricultural labour and derives remuneration around Rs. 5000/- per month at the rate of Rs. 200 to 250 per day. He has also filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities before court below pursuant to judgement of Hon'bl Supreme Court in Rajnish Vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 wherein he has stated his qualification MA wherein he stated himself as agricultural labour therefore it is impossible for him to provide maintenance amount Rs. 6000/- from the date of filing application.

7. He next submitted that pursuant to order dated 25.3.2014, revisionist is paying Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent no. 2 under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act without any break even that amount has not been directed to be set off in the maintenance amount while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly considered the assets and property of father of the revisionist while determining the maintenance which is not permissible under section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein obligation to pay maintenance to the wife and children is exclusive and separate liability of the husband and parents' assets and property cannot be taken into account while awarding amount of maintenance. The learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicant no. 2 without determining income of revisionist.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 is running stitching center from which derives Rs. 10,000/- per month and she is also having two buffaloes from which she is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.

9. He also submitted that the agricultural land which is attributed to the revisionist income belongs to his father and he is neither owner nor beneficiary of agricultural profits from said land that agricultural land is consists of 10 Bigha in area and a plot of 150 Sq. Yards is also laying in the name of the father of the revisionist. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 has wrongly alleged that she has been harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband in her pleadings and evidence, in fact she did not want to live with the revisionist from very beginning and she herself deserted to her parental home for last 12-13 years and in that ground also she is not entitled for maintenance inasmuch as divorce is pending between the parties at the instance of the revisionist since 2014.

10. Learned AGA for the State submitted that impugned order passed by the learned trial court is a speaking order in which all the attending facts and circumstances of the case and evidence appearing on record has been duly and properly discussed, therefore, no interference is warranted in present revision.

11. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act provides as under:- "24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.— Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be."

12. This provision provides support from earning spouse in favour of non earning of spouse during the pendency of proceedings before the Court. The purpose and purport of providing maintenance under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act to either of spouse on the ground of his or her inefficiency to support herself/ himself, as the case may be, and to made out the expenses of matrimonial proceedings under the act whereas under section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance to wife, children and parents if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them. Thus, both the provisions hold different fields.

13. The revisionist has prayed for setting aside the impugned order whereby maintenance order has been passed against him in favour of the applicant wife. Revisionist could not adduce any cogent evidence in support of his claim that respondent no. 2 earns Rs. 10,000/- from running stitching center and keeping two buffaloes and she also earns Rs. 15,000/- per month by selling milk of said buffaloes. The revisionist has stated the assumed income of the applicant as Rs. 25,000/- per month without any evidence. His daily ways is only Rs. 250-300 per day. He has stated that daily ways as received as a labourer and income of his father from agriculture, are separate. He earns his livelihood from daily wages obtained from his labourer.

14. Learned court below has rightly observed in the impugned order that even in present case the daily wager earns not less than Rs. 500-600 per day. It is admitted fact that the agricultural land is recorded in the name of his father and on account of being only son of his father, he would have been helping his father in agricultural activity and his total earning from agricultural labourer and agricultural income of the land of his father cannot be held less than Rs. 35000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. The revisionist has concealed his income in his affidavit of assets and liability. The revisionist is a resourceful person and he is under obligation to maintain his wife upto the same standard which she was enjoying while residing with the revisionist at his place. The amount of maintenance from the date of filing of application to date of judgment at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month is huge amount and some deduction is desirable keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that no documentary proof could be adduced with regard to his income by respondent no. 2, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be slightly modified in the interest of justice.

15. It is directed that amount of maintenance awarded to the respondent no. 2 from the date of application to date of judgement is reduced from Rs. 5000/- per month to Rs. 4000/- per month. The amount of maintenance fixed as Rs. 6000/- per month from the date of judgment dated 14.5.2024 will remain intact and no interference is warranted therein.

16. Revision stands partly allowed with above modification. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 SY SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist is present.

2. Notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2 but none appeared to represent her in present criminal revision.

3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the final maintenance judgement and order dated 14.5.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 129 of 2017 under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby application for maintenance no. Ka-3 filed by wife/respondent is allowed and maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month on every 10th date of month has been awarded from the date of order and Rs. 5000/- from date of application i.e. from 27.2.2017 to 14.5.2024 on every 10th date of month filing of application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court has granted maintenance to the applicant/respondent no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing of application 27.2.2024 to the date of judgement dated 14.5.2024 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month.

6. The revisionist was earlier teaching in a private school but he was terminated from from his service and thereafter he works as agricultural labour and derives remuneration around Rs. 5000/- per month at the rate of Rs. 200 to 250 per day. He has also filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities before court below pursuant to judgement of Hon'bl Supreme Court in Rajnish Vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 wherein he has stated his qualification MA wherein he stated himself as agricultural labour therefore it is impossible for him to provide maintenance amount Rs. 6000/- from the date of filing application.

7. He next submitted that pursuant to order dated 25.3.2014, revisionist is paying Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent no. 2 under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act without any break even that amount has not been directed to be set off in the maintenance amount while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly considered the assets and property of father of the revisionist while determining the maintenance which is not permissible under section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein obligation to pay maintenance to the wife and children is exclusive and separate liability of the husband and parents' assets and property cannot be taken into account while awarding amount of maintenance. The learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicant no. 2 without determining income of revisionist.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 is running stitching center from which derives Rs. 10,000/- per month and she is also having two buffaloes from which she is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.

9. He also submitted that the agricultural land which is attributed to the revisionist income belongs to his father and he is neither owner nor beneficiary of agricultural profits from said land that agricultural land is consists of 10 Bigha in area and a plot of 150 Sq. Yards is also laying in the name of the father of the revisionist. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 has wrongly alleged that she has been harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband in her pleadings and evidence, in fact she did not want to live with the revisionist from very beginning and she herself deserted to her parental home for last 12-13 years and in that ground also she is not entitled for maintenance inasmuch as divorce is pending between the parties at the instance of the revisionist since 2014.

10. Learned AGA for the State submitted that impugned order passed by the learned trial court is a speaking order in which all the attending facts and circumstances of the case and evidence appearing on record has been duly and properly discussed, therefore, no interference is warranted in present revision.

11. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act provides as under:- "24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.— Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be."

12. This provision provides support from earning spouse in favour of non earning of spouse during the pendency of proceedings before the Court. The purpose and purport of providing maintenance under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act to either of spouse on the ground of his or her inefficiency to support herself/ himself, as the case may be, and to made out the expenses of matrimonial proceedings under the act whereas under section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance to wife, children and parents if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them. Thus, both the provisions hold different fields.

13. The revisionist has prayed for setting aside the impugned order whereby maintenance order has been passed against him in favour of the applicant wife. Revisionist could not adduce any cogent evidence in support of his claim that respondent no. 2 earns Rs. 10,000/- from running stitching center and keeping two buffaloes and she also earns Rs. 15,000/- per month by selling milk of said buffaloes. The revisionist has stated the assumed income of the applicant as Rs. 25,000/- per month without any evidence. His daily ways is only Rs. 250-300 per day. He has stated that daily ways as received as a labourer and income of his father from agriculture, are separate. He earns his livelihood from daily wages obtained from his labourer.

14. Learned court below has rightly observed in the impugned order that even in present case the daily wager earns not less than Rs. 500-600 per day. It is admitted fact that the agricultural land is recorded in the name of his father and on account of being only son of his father, he would have been helping his father in agricultural activity and his total earning from agricultural labourer and agricultural income of the land of his father cannot be held less than Rs. 35000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. The revisionist has concealed his income in his affidavit of assets and liability. The revisionist is a resourceful person and he is under obligation to maintain his wife upto the same standard which she was enjoying while residing with the revisionist at his place. The amount of maintenance from the date of filing of application to date of judgment at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month is huge amount and some deduction is desirable keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that no documentary proof could be adduced with regard to his income by respondent no. 2, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be slightly modified in the interest of justice.

15. It is directed that amount of maintenance awarded to the respondent no. 2 from the date of application to date of judgement is reduced from Rs. 5000/- per month to Rs. 4000/- per month. The amount of maintenance fixed as Rs. 6000/- per month from the date of judgment dated 14.5.2024 will remain intact and no interference is warranted therein.

16. Revision stands partly allowed with above modification. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 SY SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad