High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgment is exparte judgment and it is admitted fact that the revisionist had not participated in process of hearing of maintenance case by the learned court below, inasmuch as the service of process on revisionist has been held to be sufficient on the basis of registered post. The revisionist is working as a tailor in Saudi Arab and being a person of meagre economic resources, he is not in a position to pay huge amount of Rs.13,000/- as maintenance to the original applicants.

4. Learned trial court has failed to consider the fact that respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial home alongwith her children without sufficient cause and therefore, she is not titled to seek any maintenance from her husband as claimed by her in view of provisions under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.. He next submitted that if earnings of revisionist are wrongly shown in maintenance application, which is exaggerated. The impugned judgment and order is apparently illegal and not justified. The findings recorded by learned court below are against the strength of evidence on record. While deciding maintenance case, learned court below has not duly considered the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha 2021(2) SCC 324 wherein it is provided that the applicant shall file her affidavit of income, assets and liabilities, and thereafter opposite party has to file his reply affidavit of disclosure of income, assets and liabilities, within four weeks, to enable the court /Magistrate concerned to make an objective assessment of the quantum of maintenance.

5. He lastly submitted that respondent No.2 earns Rs.80,000/- per month from sewing work and is able to maintain herself and her children. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order may kindly be set-aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the service of process on revisionist was held to be sufficient by registered post, which is a recognized mode provided in C.P.C. for service of process, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi criminal proceedings and essentially of civil nature.

7. He next submitted that the learned court below has placed reliance on version of respondent No.2 in maintenance application, wherein she has stated in her evidence that opposite party works as a tailor in Saudi Arab, he is also running sewing shop on his house at his native place. He possesses a three storied house at his native place and his monthly earning from all source is around Rs.1,50,000/-. Learned trial court has observed that although petitioner could not adduce any documentary evidence, in support of her claim regarding earnings of opposite party, but being husband of her wife and father of children, it is his moral and legal obligation to maintain them and accordingly awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the applicant Nos. 3,4,5 & 6 who are minor children. The sum awarded to the applicants in the impugned judgment in no manner can be said to be exorbitant or excessive. In fact, this is minimum amount for maintenance of the applicants in present market conditions and state of inflation which have made cost of living very expensive. No interference is required in the impugned judgment and order, as same is based on evidence on record and there is no illegality, or perversity in the impugned judgment and order.

8. The perusal of record reveals that the original applicants including wife and four children of opposite party Mustafa filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court . The applicants are resident of village Deoghatti, P.S. Bargadava Bazar District Maharajganj. The parties profess muslim religion. The marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with opposite party in the year 2005 according to muslim rites and rituals. She was sent off to her matrimonial home after marriage and performed her matrimonial obligations. Her father gave Rs.1 lakh cash and ornaments in the marriage to opposite party and his family members, nevertheless they were not happy, and they started demanding motorcycle as additional dowry and used to give beating to her on that count. She suffered all these things in the hope that things will improve in the course of time. She gave birth to four children (two daughters and two sons) out of her wedlock with the opposite party, and they are co-applicants, as they were minor at the time of filing of application for maintenance. The applicant No.1 resided at her matrimonial home for 15 to 16 years after marriage, but she was never happy. The opposite party used to dislodge her after every 1-2 months. Her children were born at her parental place, and expenses in their birth were also incurred by her father.

9. The applicant No.1 had earlier filed an application for maintenance, but opposite party entered into compromise with her and took her at his home, and thereafter went to Saudi Arab. Her family members used to kicked her out after giving beating to her, after her husband left for Saudi Arab. He also used to take side of his family members and never took responsibility to maintain the applicants, who are wife and children. He used to cast aspersion on applicant No.1 and her children and could not permit them to go outside the home. She was finally turned out from her matrimonial home on 21.03.2022 after telephonic conversation with her husband, in which he had abused her and threatened to solemnize second marriage. He got the applicants expelled from the house after hatching a conspiracy with his family members. He has admitted to her that he had entered into relationship with some girl named as Gunja. The opposite party and his family members had detained her ornaments. She is living at her parental place since 21.03.2022. Opposite party neglected to maintain his wife and minor children. He is an affluent person, he earns sufficient money while working as a tailor in Saudi Arab. He has three storied house at his native place. The applicant No.1 has demanded Rs.30,000/- as maintenance.

10. Learned trial court has observed in the impugned judgment and order that service of summons were found to be sufficient on opposite party, through registered post, but he never turned up to contest the case or file his written statement. Therefore, the case was proceeded exparte against him. Applicant No.1 Akila has filed her affidavit evidence, alongwith evidence of her witness Mohd. Nakki on 10.01.2024, and she has also filed the documentary evidence like copy of aadhar card, extracts of family register. She has filed affidavit of disclosure of assets and liability as Ext. 5- Kha.

11. Learned trial court has given a finding on the basis of exparte evidence adduced by the applicants that on the basis of evidence it is established that applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party and applicants No.2 to 5 are their minor children. Applicant No.1 is living separately from her husband on sufficient cause, she is unable to maintain herself as well as her children. Opposite party is a resourceful person, he works in Saudi Arab as a tailor and a sewing shop was also operated at his native place.

12. As per version of the applicant No.1 who has stated that his monthly income from all sources is Rs.1,50,000/-. However, no documentary evidence has been filed in support of his version. Keeping in view the social and economic status of the parties, learned court below has allowed maintenance to the applicants in the terms as stated above. The opposite party could not adduce any evidence in support of his version and that he was not aware of the proceedings of the case or process were not served upon him through registered post. There is nothing on record, which could suggest that the applicant No.1 is having any independent income to maintain herself as well as her minor children. This fact is not denied that opposite party has been working as a tailor in Saudi Arab. Law is well settled that an able-bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and minor children, even, if he is unemployed. This is the moral and legal obligation of a person to maintain his wife and minor children, and he cannot shirk his responsibilities from lame excuses. The amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents No. 2 to 6 in no manner can be said to be exorbitant or excessive. It is quite, reasonable and just keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.

13. On consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and material on record, I am of considered opinion that there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. The revision is devoid of merit, and deserves to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgment is exparte judgment and it is admitted fact that the revisionist had not participated in process of hearing of maintenance case by the learned court below, inasmuch as the service of process on revisionist has been held to be sufficient on the basis of registered post. The revisionist is working as a tailor in Saudi Arab and being a person of meagre economic resources, he is not in a position to pay huge amount of Rs.13,000/- as maintenance to the original applicants.

4. Learned trial court has failed to consider the fact that respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial home alongwith her children without sufficient cause and therefore, she is not titled to seek any maintenance from her husband as claimed by her in view of provisions under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.. He next submitted that if earnings of revisionist are wrongly shown in maintenance application, which is exaggerated. The impugned judgment and order is apparently illegal and not justified. The findings recorded by learned court below are against the strength of evidence on record. While deciding maintenance case, learned court below has not duly considered the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha 2021(2) SCC 324 wherein it is provided that the applicant shall file her affidavit of income, assets and liabilities, and thereafter opposite party has to file his reply affidavit of disclosure of income, assets and liabilities, within four weeks, to enable the court /Magistrate concerned to make an objective assessment of the quantum of maintenance.

5. He lastly submitted that respondent No.2 earns Rs.80,000/- per month from sewing work and is able to maintain herself and her children. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order may kindly be set-aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the service of process on revisionist was held to be sufficient by registered post, which is a recognized mode provided in C.P.C. for service of process, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi criminal proceedings and essentially of civil nature.

7. He next submitted that the learned court below has placed reliance on version of respondent No.2 in maintenance application, wherein she has stated in her evidence that opposite party works as a tailor in Saudi Arab, he is also running sewing shop on his house at his native place. He possesses a three storied house at his native place and his monthly earning from all source is around Rs.1,50,000/-. Learned trial court has observed that although petitioner could not adduce any documentary evidence, in support of her claim regarding earnings of opposite party, but being husband of her wife and father of children, it is his moral and legal obligation to maintain them and accordingly awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the applicant Nos. 3,4,5 & 6 who are minor children. The sum awarded to the applicants in the impugned judgment in no manner can be said to be exorbitant or excessive. In fact, this is minimum amount for maintenance of the applicants in present market conditions and state of inflation which have made cost of living very expensive. No interference is required in the impugned judgment and order, as same is based on evidence on record and there is no illegality, or perversity in the impugned judgment and order.

8. The perusal of record reveals that the original applicants including wife and four children of opposite party Mustafa filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court . The applicants are resident of village Deoghatti, P.S. Bargadava Bazar District Maharajganj. The parties profess muslim religion. The marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with opposite party in the year 2005 according to muslim rites and rituals. She was sent off to her matrimonial home after marriage and performed her matrimonial obligations. Her father gave Rs.1 lakh cash and ornaments in the marriage to opposite party and his family members, nevertheless they were not happy, and they started demanding motorcycle as additional dowry and used to give beating to her on that count. She suffered all these things in the hope that things will improve in the course of time. She gave birth to four children (two daughters and two sons) out of her wedlock with the opposite party, and they are co-applicants, as they were minor at the time of filing of application for maintenance. The applicant No.1 resided at her matrimonial home for 15 to 16 years after marriage, but she was never happy. The opposite party used to dislodge her after every 1-2 months. Her children were born at her parental place, and expenses in their birth were also incurred by her father.

9. The applicant No.1 had earlier filed an application for maintenance, but opposite party entered into compromise with her and took her at his home, and thereafter went to Saudi Arab. Her family members used to kicked her out after giving beating to her, after her husband left for Saudi Arab. He also used to take side of his family members and never took responsibility to maintain the applicants, who are wife and children. He used to cast aspersion on applicant No.1 and her children and could not permit them to go outside the home. She was finally turned out from her matrimonial home on 21.03.2022 after telephonic conversation with her husband, in which he had abused her and threatened to solemnize second marriage. He got the applicants expelled from the house after hatching a conspiracy with his family members. He has admitted to her that he had entered into relationship with some girl named as Gunja. The opposite party and his family members had detained her ornaments. She is living at her parental place since 21.03.2022. Opposite party neglected to maintain his wife and minor children. He is an affluent person, he earns sufficient money while working as a tailor in Saudi Arab. He has three storied house at his native place. The applicant No.1 has demanded Rs.30,000/- as maintenance.

10. Learned trial court has observed in the impugned judgment and order that service of summons were found to be sufficient on opposite party, through registered post, but he never turned up to contest the case or file his written statement. Therefore, the case was proceeded exparte against him. Applicant No.1 Akila has filed her affidavit evidence, alongwith evidence of her witness Mohd. Nakki on 10.01.2024, and she has also filed the documentary evidence like copy of aadhar card, extracts of family register. She has filed affidavit of disclosure of assets and liability as Ext. 5- Kha.

11. Learned trial court has given a finding on the basis of exparte evidence adduced by the applicants that on the basis of evidence it is established that applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party and applicants No.2 to 5 are their minor children. Applicant No.1 is living separately from her husband on sufficient cause, she is unable to maintain herself as well as her children. Opposite party is a resourceful person, he works in Saudi Arab as a tailor and a sewing shop was also operated at his native place.

12. As per version of the applicant No.1 who has stated that his monthly income from all sources is Rs.1,50,000/-. However, no documentary evidence has been filed in support of his version. Keeping in view the social and economic status of the parties, learned court below has allowed maintenance to the applicants in the terms as stated above. The opposite party could not adduce any evidence in support of his version and that he was not aware of the proceedings of the case or process were not served upon him through registered post. There is nothing on record, which could suggest that the applicant No.1 is having any independent income to maintain herself as well as her minor children. This fact is not denied that opposite party has been working as a tailor in Saudi Arab. Law is well settled that an able-bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and minor children, even, if he is unemployed. This is the moral and legal obligation of a person to maintain his wife and minor children, and he cannot shirk his responsibilities from lame excuses. The amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents No. 2 to 6 in no manner can be said to be exorbitant or excessive. It is quite, reasonable and just keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.

13. On consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and material on record, I am of considered opinion that there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. The revision is devoid of merit, and deserves to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad