Smt. Reeta Devi Ors v. Vimal Kumar), under Section
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
1. Heard Sri Dharm Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Devendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Fatehpur, in Case No. 522 of 2019 (Smt. Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Vimal Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party no.3 till she attains the age of majority from the date of application.
3. The sole argument made by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a labourer and doing work of mason (Raj Mistry) and has per source of income, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 his minor daughter. It is further submitted that he is ready to pay the amount of maintenance but the amount of maintenance awarded by is excessive and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is next submitted that the trial court has quantified the income of the revisionist of Rs. 50,000/- but there is no documentary evidence on record to show the income of the revisionist as fixed by the trial court. All these facts has not been considered by learned court below while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set-aside the order passed by learned court below and allow the present revision. trial court
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the 2 CRLR No. 4843 of 2024 revisionist and submits that the revisionist is a contractor and construct buildings and houses but it is admitted that there is no documentary evidence on record regarding his actual income. It is further submitted that the trial court after considering all aspect of the matter awarded the maintenance allowances of Rs.8000/- in total cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
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 fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his minor daughter. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, the trial court awarded amount of maintenance allowances of Rs. 8,000/- in total in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, without any specific ground has quantified the income of the revisionist as Rs. 50,000/- while there is no documentary evidence on record to show the income as fixed by trial court. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted that the revisionist is a mason (Raj Mistry) and earns Rs.1,000/- per day, and therefore, his monthly income should be assessed at least Rs.30,000/- per month. This fact has not been denied by learned counsel for the revisionist, however, it is admitted that the revisionist being human it cannot be expected to work every day without rest. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, if the revisionist is considered as a mason and is presumed to get work for 25 days in a month, his monthly income would be assessed at Rs.25,000/-. 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. 6250/-.
6. Thus, in view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount awarded Rs. 8000/- in total by the court below is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife but the amount of maintenance should be commensurate with the income of the husband. Hence the maintenance awarded by the court below seems to be excessive and deserves to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs. 4000/- from Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and to Rs. 2250/- from Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (daughter) payable from the date of application.
7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 6250/- from Rs. 8,000/- per month in total 3 CRLR No. 4843 of 2024 from the date of the application.
8. The amount received by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment.
9. 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 November, 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. 2650/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) granted by this Court as aforesaid. September 24, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Dharm Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Devendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Fatehpur, in Case No. 522 of 2019 (Smt. Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Vimal Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party no.3 till she attains the age of majority from the date of application.
3. The sole argument made by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a labourer and doing work of mason (Raj Mistry) and has per source of income, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 his minor daughter. It is further submitted that he is ready to pay the amount of maintenance but the amount of maintenance awarded by is excessive and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is next submitted that the trial court has quantified the income of the revisionist of Rs. 50,000/- but there is no documentary evidence on record to show the income of the revisionist as fixed by the trial court. All these facts has not been considered by learned court below while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set-aside the order passed by learned court below and allow the present revision. trial court
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the 2 CRLR No. 4843 of 2024 revisionist and submits that the revisionist is a contractor and construct buildings and houses but it is admitted that there is no documentary evidence on record regarding his actual income. It is further submitted that the trial court after considering all aspect of the matter awarded the maintenance allowances of Rs.8000/- in total cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
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 fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his minor daughter. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, the trial court awarded amount of maintenance allowances of Rs. 8,000/- in total in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, without any specific ground has quantified the income of the revisionist as Rs. 50,000/- while there is no documentary evidence on record to show the income as fixed by trial court. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted that the revisionist is a mason (Raj Mistry) and earns Rs.1,000/- per day, and therefore, his monthly income should be assessed at least Rs.30,000/- per month. This fact has not been denied by learned counsel for the revisionist, however, it is admitted that the revisionist being human it cannot be expected to work every day without rest. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, if the revisionist is considered as a mason and is presumed to get work for 25 days in a month, his monthly income would be assessed at Rs.25,000/-. 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. 6250/-.
6. Thus, in view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount awarded Rs. 8000/- in total by the court below is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife but the amount of maintenance should be commensurate with the income of the husband. Hence the maintenance awarded by the court below seems to be excessive and deserves to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs. 4000/- from Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and to Rs. 2250/- from Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (daughter) payable from the date of application.
7. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 6250/- from Rs. 8,000/- per month in total 3 CRLR No. 4843 of 2024 from the date of the application.
8. The amount received by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment.
9. 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 November, 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. 2650/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) granted by this Court as aforesaid. September 24, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad