Pinki Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6863 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pinki Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143938
 
Court No. - 91
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1373 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Pinki Gupta
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kashi Nath Shukla,Ramji Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 20th May, 2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Basti in Maintenance Case No. 29 of 2016 (Smt. Pinki Gupta Vs. Prakash Gupta) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the Additional Principal Judge has partly allowed the application filed by the revisionist directing opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the revisionist towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. Facts in short are that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 3rd June, 2013. After some time of marriage the relationship between the husband and wife i.e. opposite party no.2 and the revisionist became strained and incompatible. Consequently, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist which has been numbered as Maintenance Case No. 29 of 2016 (Smt. Pinki Gupta Vs. Prakash Gupta). On 26th September, 2017, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Basti passed an ex-parte judgment and order directing opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the revisionist towards maintenance allowance. Whereafter opposite party no.2 filed an application for recall of the order dated 26th September, 2017, which has been recalled and objection was invited from opposite party no.2 against the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which has been submitted by opposite party no.2 on 28th September, 2021. After that, the Additional Principal Judge has passed the impugned judgment and order. Hence the present criminal revision.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that initially the court below vide ex-parte judgment and order dated 26th September, 2017 directed opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the revisionist towards maintenance allowance but after same was recalled, now the impugned judgment and order dated 20th May, 2023 has been passed and only Rs. 1,500/-per month has been awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionist towards maintenance allowance, which is so meagre amount and not sufficient for the revisionist to maintain herself. It is further contended that on the basis of material and evidence available on record, the court below has come to the conclusion that opposite party no.2 is a labourer. In such circumstances, if it is presumed that the opposite party no.2 is a labourer, meaning thereby that he would earn Rs.500/- per day and his total income would be Rs.15,000/- per month.

5. It is then submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, 25% of the net income of the husband i.e. opposite party no.2 may be fixed as maintenance allowance to a wife i.e. the revisionist, which comes out to Rs. 3,750/- per month, if it is presumed that opposite party no.2 being labourer earns Rs. 500/- per day and Rs. 15,000/- per month.

6. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court under the impugned judgment has awarded only Rs.1,500/- per month in favour of the revisionist towards maintenance allowance, which is a very meagre amount for a woman to survive herself in these hard days. Therefore, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, setting aside the impugned judgment and order, may enhance the amount of maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs.3,750/- in view of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra).

7. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court awarding Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of the revisionist.

8. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 is working as labourer and he earns a very meagre amount. It is also submitted that the revisionist also has liability of his son and old mother. It is also submitted that since the revisionist is residing separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 without any reason, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2.

9. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the award of maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.1,500/- in favour of the revisionist under the impugned judgment is sufficient, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. 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 the revisionist is the wife of opposite party no.2 and she is living separately on the negligence on the part of her husband i.e.opposite party no.2.

11. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, this Court may record that it is admitted that the opposite party no.2 is a well bodied person and even if it is presumed that at the present time, he works as a labourer (before the trial court also the opposite party no.2 has pleaded that he works as labourer), he would earn at least Rs. 500 a day, meaning thereby that his income would be Rs. 15,000 per month.

12. 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 (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.

13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionist is so meagre amount in these hard days.

14. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is modified to the extent that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded in favour of the revisionist to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- is enhanced to Rs. 3,750/- per month, which is 25% of the net monthly income of opposite party no.2 as per the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra).

15. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

16. However, it is provided that since opposite party no.2 has not paid any single penny to the revisionist, therefore, this Court directs opposite party no.2 to pay the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance to the revisionsit in every three months, meaning thereby that after every three 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. 3,750/- per month to the revisionist regularly towards maintenance allowance from September, 2025.

17. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Madan Pal Singh, J.)

Order Date :- 21.8.2025

Sushil/-