State Of U.P. And Another v. Party

Bulandshahr, in Maintenance Case No. 888 of 2022 (Smt. Guddan Vs. Chaman), Police Station-B.B. Nagar, District-Bulandshahr, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance in the first week of each calendar month from the date of filing of the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist at her parental house without any sufficient reason. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 once fell from the roof due to which her hip bone was broken and the revisionist had to sell his four and half bighas of agricultural land for her treatment.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submits that the revisionist has no source of income and he is a labourer only. Therefore, amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment at Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the instant application is too 2 CRLR No. 3906 of 2024 excessive and exorbitant and also not incommensurate with the income of the revisionist. As such, the judgment impugned cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has 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. 7,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of application towards maintenance allowance so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist because she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on the part of the revisionist continuously. The revisionist has an anger issues and he used to beat the opposite party no.2 for additional demand of dowry. In fact once the revisionist had pushed opposite party no.2 down from the roof due to which she sustained serious injuries and her hip bone was also fractured.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that keeping in mind the present scenario, inflation and the cost of living, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive. He, therefore, submits that since there is no illegality in the judgment impugned, the 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 no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

10. 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 and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and cannot avoid his obligation.

11. So far as separate living of the opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist is concerned, the trial court has categorically recorded that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband at her parental house with sufficient cause. In the opinion of the Court, the finding returned by the trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, on the said issue is a categorical finding of fact. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it 3 CRLR No. 3906 of 2024 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. Qua the income of the opposite party no.2, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that there is nothing on record to establish that she is a working lady and she has any source of income in order to maintain herself. The trial court has also opined that opposite party no.2 has no source of income.

13. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, it is admitted by opposite party no.2 herself that at the time of marriage, the revisionist was working in a private company at Gurgaon and he was getting Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary. Opposite party no.2 in her cross- examination has also admitted that the land which was in the share of the revisionist i.e. 4.5 bighas of agricultural land has already been sold. There is nothing available on record to show that at present the revisionist is in employment. It is also not clear from the record that at present as to how much money he earns in a month. No documentary evidence is available on record with regard to the exact monthly income of the revisionist. However, as per the statement of the revisionist himself before the trial court that he is a labourer. In that circumstance, if it is considered that he is a labourer, then he would at least earn Rs. 600/- per day, meaning thereby that his total monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- per month.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 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.

15. 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 i.e. Rs. 7,000/- is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. 25% of the total monthly amount i.e. Rs. 18,000 as quantified by this Court herein-above would be Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the same is reduced to Rs. 4,500 from Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 4 CRLR No. 3906 of 2024 (wife) and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of the instant application.

16. Consequently, judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Bulandshahr, in Maintenance Case No. 888 of 2022 (Smt. Guddan Vs. Chaman), Police Station-B.B. Nagar, District-Bulandshahr, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. Since the revisionist is a labourer and has no other source of income, it would be too harsh for him to pay the same in one stroke. Therefore, this Court directs the revisionist to pay the total arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in 15 equal monthly installments. The first monthly installment shall commence from 20th September, 2025.

17. 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.

18. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

19. There shall be no order as to costs. September 12, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bulandshahr, in Maintenance Case No. 888 of 2022 (Smt. Guddan Vs. Chaman), Police Station-B.B. Nagar, District-Bulandshahr, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance in the first week of each calendar month from the date of filing of the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist at her parental house without any sufficient reason. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 once fell from the roof due to which her hip bone was broken and the revisionist had to sell his four and half bighas of agricultural land for her treatment.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submits that the revisionist has no source of income and he is a labourer only. Therefore, amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment at Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the instant application is too 2 CRLR No. 3906 of 2024 excessive and exorbitant and also not incommensurate with the income of the revisionist. As such, the judgment impugned cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has 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. 7,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of application towards maintenance allowance so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist because she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on the part of the revisionist continuously. The revisionist has an anger issues and he used to beat the opposite party no.2 for additional demand of dowry. In fact once the revisionist had pushed opposite party no.2 down from the roof due to which she sustained serious injuries and her hip bone was also fractured.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that keeping in mind the present scenario, inflation and the cost of living, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive. He, therefore, submits that since there is no illegality in the judgment impugned, the 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 no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

10. 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 and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and cannot avoid his obligation.

11. So far as separate living of the opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist is concerned, the trial court has categorically recorded that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband at her parental house with sufficient cause. In the opinion of the Court, the finding returned by the trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, on the said issue is a categorical finding of fact. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it 3 CRLR No. 3906 of 2024 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. Qua the income of the opposite party no.2, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that there is nothing on record to establish that she is a working lady and she has any source of income in order to maintain herself. The trial court has also opined that opposite party no.2 has no source of income.

13. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, it is admitted by opposite party no.2 herself that at the time of marriage, the revisionist was working in a private company at Gurgaon and he was getting Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary. Opposite party no.2 in her cross- examination has also admitted that the land which was in the share of the revisionist i.e. 4.5 bighas of agricultural land has already been sold. There is nothing available on record to show that at present the revisionist is in employment. It is also not clear from the record that at present as to how much money he earns in a month. No documentary evidence is available on record with regard to the exact monthly income of the revisionist. However, as per the statement of the revisionist himself before the trial court that he is a labourer. In that circumstance, if it is considered that he is a labourer, then he would at least earn Rs. 600/- per day, meaning thereby that his total monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- per month.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 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.

15. 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 i.e. Rs. 7,000/- is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. 25% of the total monthly amount i.e. Rs. 18,000 as quantified by this Court herein-above would be Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the same is reduced to Rs. 4,500 from Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 4 CRLR No. 3906 of 2024 (wife) and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of the instant application.

16. Consequently, judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Bulandshahr, in Maintenance Case No. 888 of 2022 (Smt. Guddan Vs. Chaman), Police Station-B.B. Nagar, District-Bulandshahr, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. Since the revisionist is a labourer and has no other source of income, it would be too harsh for him to pay the same in one stroke. Therefore, this Court directs the revisionist to pay the total arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in 15 equal monthly installments. The first monthly installment shall commence from 20th September, 2025.

17. 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.

18. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

19. There shall be no order as to costs. September 12, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad