Yatin Kumar v. Party

1. Learned counsel for the parties stated at bar that they are ready to argue the case without exchange of pleadings.

2. Heard Shri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Rajat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 as well as Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State- opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

3. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Maintenance Case No. 226 of 2022 (Smt. Sudha Agrawal Vs. Yatin Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura, by which the trial court has awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.3000-3000/- per month, each to both the minor sons, namely, Yuvan and Vaibhav (till they attained the age of majority) of opposite party no.2, who have been arrayed as opposite party nos. 3 and 4 from the date of application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that he is still willing to take her wife and children back and wants to reside with them and she is a cantankerous lady, often involves in petty issues with him and his family members. He also submitted that there is no demand of dowry as alleged by the opposite party no.2, no marpeet took between them. She willingly had left her matrimonial home without any reason and started residing at her parental house. He further submitted that he has a pendrive and some video clips in which the opposite party no.2-Sudha Agrawal was aggressive, can be seen that she is a quarrelsome lady and she did not want to live with the parents of the revisionist. He next submitted that the amount 2 CRLR No. 4602 of 2024 of maintenance awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with the salary/income of the revisionist and is excessive, hence prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 stated that no serious effort has been made by the revisonist to take the opposite party no.2 and her children with him. He further submitted that the revisionist has not filed the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights rather filed divorce petition at Rajasthan, which shows that actually the revisionist do not want to take her back with him and further do not want to live with his wife and children. The amount awarded by the trial court is not excessive as the revisionist is a government servant working as a teacher and he is getting salary of Rs.64, 325/- per month in the year 2023 and now it must have increased.

6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 22.07.2024, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to the relation between the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 as husband and wife and the opposite party nos.3 and 4 are their sons. So far as the contention raised with regard to separate living of the opposite party no.2 from the revisionist is concerned, the leaned trial court while deciding issue no.5 has categorically recorded its finding in detail, which is satisfactory.

7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party no.2 is a quarrelsome lady is concerned, the revisionist has placed a pendrive before the trial court, which has been marked as List 29-B, but what was in the pendrive, no averment has been made in this regard in the whole of the judgment, therefore, this Court being the revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding unless the findings of the trial court is completely perverse and against the fact and law, therefore, it is not in dispute that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason as has been recorded by the trial court. There is nothing on record to show whether the opposite party no.2 has any source of income or she is working somewhere to maintain herself which may deem sufficient to maintain herself.

8. Admittedly, the revisionist is a government servant working as teacher and his gross income is Rs.64,325/- per month and in this regard salary slip of the revisionist has been annexed at page-96 of the paper book, which reflects certain deductions i.e. Rs.15,000/- (GPF), Rs.250/- (Hitkari), 3 CRLR No. 4602 of 2024 Rs.5000/- (Income Tax), Rs.1570/- (LIC), Rs.658/- (RGHS) and Rs.5000/- (SIP), thus, salary slip reflects Rs.7,000/- mandatory deductions and other deductions are in addition. Keeping in view the gross salary of the revisionist as Rs.57,000/- per month approximate, as per observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary of the husband, which comes to Rs.14,250/-, which can be said to be reasonable and just, therefore, the amount of maintenance of Rs.14,000/- per month/- (Rs.8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2, Rs.3000-3000/- each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4) awarded by the trial court is commensurate with the income of the revisionist, and as such, the same cannot be said to be excessive. The instant revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the instant revision having no force is dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that there is huge amount of arrears, which cannot be paid in one instance, hence, he prayed that it may be divided in easy instalments.

11. Keeping in view the prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it is clarified that the amount of arrears, if any, be paid to the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, in 12 equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall on 15th of October, 2025 and the rest 11 instalments shall be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. September 10, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Learned counsel for the parties stated at bar that they are ready to argue the case without exchange of pleadings.

2. Heard Shri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Rajat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 as well as Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State- opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

3. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Maintenance Case No. 226 of 2022 (Smt. Sudha Agrawal Vs. Yatin Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura, by which the trial court has awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.3000-3000/- per month, each to both the minor sons, namely, Yuvan and Vaibhav (till they attained the age of majority) of opposite party no.2, who have been arrayed as opposite party nos. 3 and 4 from the date of application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that he is still willing to take her wife and children back and wants to reside with them and she is a cantankerous lady, often involves in petty issues with him and his family members. He also submitted that there is no demand of dowry as alleged by the opposite party no.2, no marpeet took between them. She willingly had left her matrimonial home without any reason and started residing at her parental house. He further submitted that he has a pendrive and some video clips in which the opposite party no.2-Sudha Agrawal was aggressive, can be seen that she is a quarrelsome lady and she did not want to live with the parents of the revisionist. He next submitted that the amount 2 CRLR No. 4602 of 2024 of maintenance awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with the salary/income of the revisionist and is excessive, hence prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 stated that no serious effort has been made by the revisonist to take the opposite party no.2 and her children with him. He further submitted that the revisionist has not filed the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights rather filed divorce petition at Rajasthan, which shows that actually the revisionist do not want to take her back with him and further do not want to live with his wife and children. The amount awarded by the trial court is not excessive as the revisionist is a government servant working as a teacher and he is getting salary of Rs.64, 325/- per month in the year 2023 and now it must have increased.

6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 22.07.2024, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to the relation between the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 as husband and wife and the opposite party nos.3 and 4 are their sons. So far as the contention raised with regard to separate living of the opposite party no.2 from the revisionist is concerned, the leaned trial court while deciding issue no.5 has categorically recorded its finding in detail, which is satisfactory.

7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party no.2 is a quarrelsome lady is concerned, the revisionist has placed a pendrive before the trial court, which has been marked as List 29-B, but what was in the pendrive, no averment has been made in this regard in the whole of the judgment, therefore, this Court being the revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding unless the findings of the trial court is completely perverse and against the fact and law, therefore, it is not in dispute that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason as has been recorded by the trial court. There is nothing on record to show whether the opposite party no.2 has any source of income or she is working somewhere to maintain herself which may deem sufficient to maintain herself.

8. Admittedly, the revisionist is a government servant working as teacher and his gross income is Rs.64,325/- per month and in this regard salary slip of the revisionist has been annexed at page-96 of the paper book, which reflects certain deductions i.e. Rs.15,000/- (GPF), Rs.250/- (Hitkari), 3 CRLR No. 4602 of 2024 Rs.5000/- (Income Tax), Rs.1570/- (LIC), Rs.658/- (RGHS) and Rs.5000/- (SIP), thus, salary slip reflects Rs.7,000/- mandatory deductions and other deductions are in addition. Keeping in view the gross salary of the revisionist as Rs.57,000/- per month approximate, as per observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary of the husband, which comes to Rs.14,250/-, which can be said to be reasonable and just, therefore, the amount of maintenance of Rs.14,000/- per month/- (Rs.8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2, Rs.3000-3000/- each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4) awarded by the trial court is commensurate with the income of the revisionist, and as such, the same cannot be said to be excessive. The instant revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the instant revision having no force is dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that there is huge amount of arrears, which cannot be paid in one instance, hence, he prayed that it may be divided in easy instalments.

11. Keeping in view the prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it is clarified that the amount of arrears, if any, be paid to the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, in 12 equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall on 15th of October, 2025 and the rest 11 instalments shall be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. September 10, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad