State of U.P. and Another v. Party

Case No. 148 of 2019 (Computerized No. UPBU020006992019) (Smt. Poonam Gupta Vs. Aviral Gupta), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by the revisionist, has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the revisionist (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. The trial court under the impugned judgment has also clarified that the amount of maintenance allowance already received or being received by the revisionist from the opposite party no.2 in the said case or in another case shall be adjusted towards the said amount.

3. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the case bearing Complaint Case No. 37 of 2021 filed by the revisionist against opposite party no.2 and his family members under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 (2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr vide order dated 28th August, 2024 has directed opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the revisionist towards monthly rental allowance and Rs. 2,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of judgment. In this way, the total allowance has been awarded favour of revisionist Rs.3,000+4,500=7,500/-. It is a different matter that smaller amounts will be converted into larger amounts. Copy of the order dated 28th August, 2024 has been enclosed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the present criminal revision. 2 CRLR No. 6383 of 2024

4. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionist to the tune of total Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment is too meagre amount and the same cannot be said to be sufficient for her livelihood at present time when the inflation is so high.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is too meagre and is not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside while enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment.

6. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have 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. 3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.

8. 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 is of the opinion that since the learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have argued only on the issue whether the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is sufficient or not, this Court is not required to enter into another issue raised before the trial court with regard to the relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2, separate living of the revisionist and the income of the revisionist.

9. For deciding the issue whether the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is sufficient for the revisionist or not, this Court may record that though before the trial court the revisionist has stated that the opposite party no.2 is doing private job in Bulman Reality, Noida and is getting Rs. 60,000/- per month, but in support of such averment, no documentary evidence has been produced 3 CRLR No. 6383 of 2024 before the trial court. As such, this Court cannot assess the income of opposite party no.2 on the basis of such oral averment. During the course of trial, it is admitted by the opposite party no.2 that he is having B.Tech. degree and has also undertaken six months C-Dech course and is working in Bulman company from where he is receiving Rs. 16,000/- per month. This averment made by the opposite party no.2 has not been converted by the revisionist during the course of trial.

10. Under such circumstances, this Court quantifies that the total monthly income of the opposite party no.2 is Rs. 16,000/- per month which is undisputed before the trial court.

11. 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.

12. Keeping in view the income of opposite party no.2 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. 3,000/- per month is not meagre and is commensurate with the net income of the opposite party no.2 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases having regard to the fact that in compliance of the order passed in the proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the opposite party no.2 is already paying Rs. 2,500+2,000=Rs. 4,500/- to the revisionist towards monthly maintenance and rental allowance. In this way, on the principal of smaller monthly maintenance allowance being merged into larger monthly maintenance allowance, the total monthly maintenance allowance awarded in favour of the revisionist would be Rs. 4,500/-only and the same is on the larger side of the net income of the opposite party no.2 i.e. Rs. 16,000/-.

13. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court in awarding Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance as she has already been awarded total Rs. 4,500/- per month in the proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 4 CRLR No. 6383 of 2024 14 The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs. October 6, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case No. 148 of 2019 (Computerized No. UPBU020006992019) (Smt. Poonam Gupta Vs. Aviral Gupta), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by the revisionist, has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the revisionist (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. The trial court under the impugned judgment has also clarified that the amount of maintenance allowance already received or being received by the revisionist from the opposite party no.2 in the said case or in another case shall be adjusted towards the said amount.

3. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the case bearing Complaint Case No. 37 of 2021 filed by the revisionist against opposite party no.2 and his family members under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 (2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr vide order dated 28th August, 2024 has directed opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the revisionist towards monthly rental allowance and Rs. 2,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of judgment. In this way, the total allowance has been awarded favour of revisionist Rs.3,000+4,500=7,500/-. It is a different matter that smaller amounts will be converted into larger amounts. Copy of the order dated 28th August, 2024 has been enclosed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the present criminal revision. 2 CRLR No. 6383 of 2024

4. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionist to the tune of total Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment is too meagre amount and the same cannot be said to be sufficient for her livelihood at present time when the inflation is so high.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is too meagre and is not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside while enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment.

6. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have 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. 3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.

8. 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 is of the opinion that since the learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have argued only on the issue whether the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is sufficient or not, this Court is not required to enter into another issue raised before the trial court with regard to the relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2, separate living of the revisionist and the income of the revisionist.

9. For deciding the issue whether the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is sufficient for the revisionist or not, this Court may record that though before the trial court the revisionist has stated that the opposite party no.2 is doing private job in Bulman Reality, Noida and is getting Rs. 60,000/- per month, but in support of such averment, no documentary evidence has been produced 3 CRLR No. 6383 of 2024 before the trial court. As such, this Court cannot assess the income of opposite party no.2 on the basis of such oral averment. During the course of trial, it is admitted by the opposite party no.2 that he is having B.Tech. degree and has also undertaken six months C-Dech course and is working in Bulman company from where he is receiving Rs. 16,000/- per month. This averment made by the opposite party no.2 has not been converted by the revisionist during the course of trial.

10. Under such circumstances, this Court quantifies that the total monthly income of the opposite party no.2 is Rs. 16,000/- per month which is undisputed before the trial court.

11. 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.

12. Keeping in view the income of opposite party no.2 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. 3,000/- per month is not meagre and is commensurate with the net income of the opposite party no.2 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases having regard to the fact that in compliance of the order passed in the proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the opposite party no.2 is already paying Rs. 2,500+2,000=Rs. 4,500/- to the revisionist towards monthly maintenance and rental allowance. In this way, on the principal of smaller monthly maintenance allowance being merged into larger monthly maintenance allowance, the total monthly maintenance allowance awarded in favour of the revisionist would be Rs. 4,500/-only and the same is on the larger side of the net income of the opposite party no.2 i.e. Rs. 16,000/-.

13. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court in awarding Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance as she has already been awarded total Rs. 4,500/- per month in the proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 4 CRLR No. 6383 of 2024 14 The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs. October 6, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad