Chandra Anand Alias Vikki v. Party

1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri R.K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, in Case No. 1096 of 2023 (Smt. Roshni @ Rabina Vs. Chandra Anand @ Vikki), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 8000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 (minor son) from the date of filing of the application.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 11.02.2018 according to Hindu rites and ritual and from their wedlock one child namely Kartik/ opposite party no.3 was born. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that due to some matrimonial discord between them due to which, opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial house without any sufficient cause. Subsequently, on 06.10.2023, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowances, which has been allowed by the trial court vide order impugned and awarded maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 (minor son) from the date of the application, which is too excessive and exorbitant. It is next submitted that the apposite party no.2 is living separately on the trivial issues. He also submitted that his father got brain hemorrhage and still he is in comma and two attended has been employed to take care of him and very huge amount has to incur for his treatment. It is further submitted that he has also the responsibility of his 2 CRLR No. 4815 of 2024 mother. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a Assistant Teacher in Primary School and received salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month as mentioned by the court below in its order. The said fact has not been considered by the court below while deciding the maintenance application, therefore, request has been made to set-aside the order passed by trial court.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that considering the income of the revisionist as well as current inflation, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- in total cannot be said to be excessive. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income, therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and her son. It is next submitted that revisionist is Assistant Teacher in Primary School and getting salary of Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 80,000/- per month. The amount fixed by learned court below cannot be said to be in excess or not in proportionate to the income of the revisionist. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court.

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 learned court below, it is admitted that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his son. 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.

6. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, the trial court awarded amount of maintenance allowances of Rs. 15,000/- in total in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, keeping in view of the admitted salary of the revisionist of Rs. 50,000/- and page no. 9 of the impugned judgment wherein it was admitted by the opposite party no. 2 that her father-in-law got brain hemorrhage and still he is in comma and very huge amount has to incur for his treatment should have been taken in consideration by the trial court while deciding the maintenance awarded. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife but it is also the duty of the son to maintain her old parents specially when they are in a tragedic condition like the case in hand. The maintenance amount awarded must be 3 CRLR No. 4815 of 2024 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.

7. Keeping in view of the monthly income of the revisionist as admitted by trial court of Rs. 50,000/-. 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 up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband comes to Rs. 12,500/-.

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 illness of his father, the order of the trial court deserved to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs. 7000/- from Rs. 8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and to Rs. 5500/- from Rs. 7000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (son) payable from the date of application.

9. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 12,500/- from Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of the application.

10. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be paid into 12 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. 7000/- and Rs. 5500/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor son) granted by this Court as aforesaid. September 17, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri R.K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, in Case No. 1096 of 2023 (Smt. Roshni @ Rabina Vs. Chandra Anand @ Vikki), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 8000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 (minor son) from the date of filing of the application.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 11.02.2018 according to Hindu rites and ritual and from their wedlock one child namely Kartik/ opposite party no.3 was born. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that due to some matrimonial discord between them due to which, opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial house without any sufficient cause. Subsequently, on 06.10.2023, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowances, which has been allowed by the trial court vide order impugned and awarded maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 (minor son) from the date of the application, which is too excessive and exorbitant. It is next submitted that the apposite party no.2 is living separately on the trivial issues. He also submitted that his father got brain hemorrhage and still he is in comma and two attended has been employed to take care of him and very huge amount has to incur for his treatment. It is further submitted that he has also the responsibility of his 2 CRLR No. 4815 of 2024 mother. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a Assistant Teacher in Primary School and received salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month as mentioned by the court below in its order. The said fact has not been considered by the court below while deciding the maintenance application, therefore, request has been made to set-aside the order passed by trial court.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that considering the income of the revisionist as well as current inflation, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- in total cannot be said to be excessive. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income, therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and her son. It is next submitted that revisionist is Assistant Teacher in Primary School and getting salary of Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 80,000/- per month. The amount fixed by learned court below cannot be said to be in excess or not in proportionate to the income of the revisionist. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court.

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 learned court below, it is admitted that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his son. 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.

6. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, the trial court awarded amount of maintenance allowances of Rs. 15,000/- in total in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, keeping in view of the admitted salary of the revisionist of Rs. 50,000/- and page no. 9 of the impugned judgment wherein it was admitted by the opposite party no. 2 that her father-in-law got brain hemorrhage and still he is in comma and very huge amount has to incur for his treatment should have been taken in consideration by the trial court while deciding the maintenance awarded. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife but it is also the duty of the son to maintain her old parents specially when they are in a tragedic condition like the case in hand. The maintenance amount awarded must be 3 CRLR No. 4815 of 2024 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.

7. Keeping in view of the monthly income of the revisionist as admitted by trial court of Rs. 50,000/-. 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 up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband comes to Rs. 12,500/-.

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 illness of his father, the order of the trial court deserved to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs. 7000/- from Rs. 8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and to Rs. 5500/- from Rs. 7000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (son) payable from the date of application.

9. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 12,500/- from Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of the application.

10. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be paid into 12 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. 7000/- and Rs. 5500/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor son) granted by this Court as aforesaid. September 17, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad