Allahabad High Court

Ravi Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:151101

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1193 of 2024

Revisionist :- Ravi Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhay Pratap Singh,Mohan Kant Baghel

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Chandra Gupta,Shubham Prakash Gupta

Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist in the Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Subham Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to quash/set aside the judgment and order dated 24th March, 2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1,Firozabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 255 of 2021 (Smt. Pratima & 2 Others Vs. Ravi Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 respectively from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that although earlier the revisionist was working as Constable in S.S.B. but on the allegation of bigamy his services had been terminated by S.S.B. department and at present he has no source of income to maintain the opposite parties. In such situation, the amount awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is excessive and exorbitant. It is further submitted that the trial court while awarding maintenance allowance in favour of opposite parties has not considered the fact of unemployment of the revisionist and without application of mind and the law applicable, it has passed the impugned judgment, which is per se illegal and liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, 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 while passing the impugned judgment.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist is husband of opposite party no. 1 and father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 respectively. He next submits that earlier the revisionist was working as Constable in S.S.B. but when he got remarried with another woman, his services had been terminated by his department on the charge of bigamy. It is further submitted that the revisionist being an ex-army man is a well bodied person and physically fit to do any job. He has also 7 bighas of agricultural land and because of same, he is living with his second wife along with a female child who was born out from the wedlock of the revisionist and his second wife. This fact shows that the revisionist has sufficient means to maintain the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 who are none other than his legally wedded wife and children and he cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and children.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the judgment impugned is in commensurate with the net monthly income of the revisionist. Therefore, no interference is warranted against the impugned judgment by this Court.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also gone through the records of the present criminal revision including the impugned judgment.

9. It is cropped up from the impugned judgment that the revisionist was earlier working as army man/constable in the office of Commandant, 39th Vahini, S.S.B. Pallia but on account of his having two wives at the same time, his services had been terminated.

10. In the complaint filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no.2, a copy of which has been enclosed along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, it has been stated that at the time of marriage, the family members of opposite party no.2 had given sufficient dowry but after some time of marriage, the revisionist and her in-laws used to torture, beating and harass opposite party no.2 for a Duster Car as additional demand of dowry and ultimately, on 18th August, 2019, the in-laws of opposite party no.2, after beating her, expelled her and her children from their house and they have not permitted her to live at her matrimonial house along with her children. On account of same, she had no other option but to live at her parental house along with her children. Opposite party no.2 has also stated in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that on account of cruelty and harassment made by the revisionist and his family members, opposite party no.2 lodged a first information report against them which was registered as Case Crime No. 644 of 2019, Police Station-Etamadaula, District Agra on 19th August, 2019.

11. From the aforesaid facts, which have been discussed in detail in the impugned judgment, it appears that the opposite party no.1 is living separately along with her children from the revisionist due to cruelty and negligence on the part of the revisionist.

12. It is not disputed on behalf of the revisionist before the trial court as well as before this Court that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, whereas opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are his children.

13. So far as the present income of the revisionist is concerned, it is cropped up from the judgment that his services as Constable in S.S.B. was terminated on account of having two wives at the same time. However, it also transpires that the revisionist is a well bodied person having 7 bighas of agricultural land then in that circumstances if it is accepted that the revisionist is a labourer in that case, this Court is of the opinion that the must be earning Rs. 30,000 per month for lobour work and also from agricultural field.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.

15. In view of the above, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance should be fixed to the tune of Rs.7,500/- per month in favour of the opposite parties, which is 25% of the net income of opposite party no.2 i.e. Rs. 30,000/-, which has been quantified herein above and the same is also in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras).

16. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 24th March, 2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1,Firozabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 255 of 2021 (Smt. Pratima & 2 Others Vs. Ravi Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.1, Rs. 1,500/- per month each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 towards maintenance allowance.

17. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the court below shall be calculated on the basis of amount of maintenance allowance as fixed by this Court herein above and after that if it is found that any amount has been paid in excess, the same shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid.

18. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 28.8.2025

Sushil/-

(Madan Pal Singh, J.)