ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6772 of 2024 Haroon State of U.P & Anr. v. Revisionist(s)

As per the office report dated 20.09.2025, notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 but despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Hence, this criminal revision is being decided after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA.

Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

That instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 1245 of 2022 (Smt. Sabiya Vs. Haroon), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Police Station Kharkhauda, District Meerut, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a practicing Advocate in District Court, Meerut, he has been enrolled as an Advocate in the year 2023 and hardly, he earns Rs.200/- per day meaning thereby, he is newly entered into the profession. It is further submits that it is a matter of common knowledge and prudence that an Advocate at the district level finds it very difficult to earn a substantial income unless and until he becomes established in the profession and starts making his place in the field. The interim maintenance awarded by the trial court of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2, which is too excessive and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. In support of his contention, he has placed the reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex 2 CRLR No. 6772 of 2024 Court 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 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.

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as aforesaid and contended that considering the current inflation, the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/- cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the income of the revisionist, who is a practicing Advocate in District Court, Meerut and he has been enrolled as an Advocate in the year 2023, this Court is of the considered view, the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist as he was newly entered into the profession. is pending consideration before

Since the application filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 the court below for final Cr.P.C. adjudication and the same shall be decided after oral as well as documentary evidence have to be led. During the course of trial the parties will have ample opportunity to file their respective evidence before the trial court, thereafter, the final amount of award shall be determined.

In the considered opinion of this Court, prima facie, it appears that the interim maintenance awarded by the trial court of Rs. 6000/- to the opposite party no.2 seems to be excessive and deserves to be reduced.

Accordingly, the amount of interim maintenance is reduced to Rs. 4000/- from Rs. 6,000/- per month during the pendency of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to conclude and decide the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of three months from today.

In view of the aforesaid observations, the present criminal revision is disposed of. 3 CRLR No. 6772 of 2024

It is made clear that while considering and deciding the application filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the trial court shall not influenced by any observation made by this Court and shall independently appreciate the issue regarding the income of the revisionist on the basis of evidence on record as well as the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129. September 22, 2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad