Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Ayub @ Chhote vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142392
Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6734 of 2024
Revisionist :- Mohammad Ayub @ Chhote
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Padmaker Pandey,Pankaj Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Pandey
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 398 of 2019 (Smt. Gulafsa Khatun Vs. Mohammad Ayub @ Chhote), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the trial court has partly allowed the application filed by opposite party no.2 and directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing application.
3. Factual matrix in short is that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 19th November, 2018 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Rituals. After some time of marriage, relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Consequently, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Case No. 398 of 2019 (Smt. Gulafsa Khatun Vs. Mohammad Ayub @ Chhote). After evidence was led and also after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court has passed by the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2024 allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2. Hence the present criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that though the opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist, but after few time of marriage she being greedy, ambitious and stubborn lady, at the behest of his father and brother, she used to insist the revisionist live with herself at her parental place leaving his family members. When the revisionist refused to do so, she left her matrimonial house taking all the jewelries of her sister-in-law and Rs.1,50,000/- along with her and is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist. He further submits that the revisionist and his family members have made all efforts to take her back to her matrimonial house, but she refused their request. It is also submitted that only in order to exert pressure upon the revisionist and his family members, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court which has been decided by means of the impugned judgment awarding Rs. 5,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2 towards monthly maintenance allowance, which is highly excessive and exorbitant because he has no means to earn any single penny. He himself is dependent upon his parents. It is next submitted that at the time of marriage he was working as designer in a company at Delhi and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month but due to the present litigation, his job was dropped and now he is not in a position to do any work and earn money to pay the aforesaid monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court. The revisionist was/is always ready to keep opposite party no.2 along with him but for the reasons beset known to her, she wants to reside separately.
5. It is, therefore, submitted that since opposite party no.2 has herself left the house of the revisionist and is living separately and also the revisionist does not earn any money, opposite party no.2 is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. As such, the impugned judgment and order being illegal and arbitrary is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. Apart from the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist is a well bodied person and he is fully able to pay the maintenance allowance. It is further submitted that before marriage, the revisionist was working as designer in a company at Delhi and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He has also 10 bighas of agricultural land, which fact has been mentioned in paragraph no.38 of the impugned order itself, which is at internal page 9 of the same. It is next submitted that so far as the reason for leaving the matrimonial home by opposite party no.2 is concerned, in the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs, the in-laws of opposite party no.2 used to harass and torture her. It is also alleged on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 used to out rage her modesty and also raped her by showing a sharp edged weapon and also by threatening to kill her on 3rd June, 2019.
8. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 by the trial court under the impugned judgment is consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that opposite party no.2 is wife of the revisionist and she is living separately on the negligence on the part of her husband i.e. revisionist.
10. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, this Court may record that it is admitted that the revisionist is a well bodied person and even if it is presumed that at the present time, he works as a labourer, he he would earn at least Rs. 700 a day, meaning thereby that his income would be Rs. 21000 per month.
11. Keeping in mind the fact that in the present hard days, when inflation is very high, food and household items are so expensive, doctor's fees are Rs. 500/- and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, wherein it has been 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.
13. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned.
14. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. However, it is provided that the revisionist shall pay the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2 in every four months, meaning thereby that after every four months, he shall pay one installment, in place of after three months as per the judgment of the trial court. He shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly towards maintenance allowance from September, 2025.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 20.8.2025
Sushil/-
