Allahabad High Court
Sultan Salim vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home ... on 4 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105337
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5057 of 2023
Revisionist :- Sultan Salim
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Department And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Shahanshah Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Maqsood Ahmad Beg,Mohammad Kayum
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Shahanshah Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Maqsood Ahmad Beg, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant revision U/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court -I, Jaunpur in Case No. 755 of 2019 (Ameena Parveen Vs. Sultan Salim @ Monu) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Machhali Shahar, District-Jaunpur, awarding Rs. 4,500/- per month as maintenance allowance to O.P. No.2 from the date of filing of Application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 19.08.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that by way of instant revision, he challenged the judgment and order dated 28.07.2023, by which application moved by O.P. No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 4,500/- per month as maintenance allowance to her from the date of filing of Application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. form 19.08.2019.
4. He further submitted that impugned order dated 28.07.2023 is illegal and based on wrong facts and it is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. He further submitted that O.P. No.2 is although, wife of the revisionist but she without any sufficient cause started living in her paternal home since the year 2017 and when revisionist tried to get her back then she refused to live in her matrimonial home and thereafter revisionist filed Application U/s 9 Hindu Marriage Act for restoration of conjugal right, which was ex parte allowed but in spite of that she did not ready to perform her matrimonial duties.
6. He further submitted that from the record, it is apparent that without any sufficient cause O.P. No.2 started living separately after leaving her matrimonial home but in spite of that trial court allowed her Application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, trial court committed gross illegality.
7. He further submitted that even from the material available on record, it reflects that revisionist is very poor and his income is hardly Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- per month, therefore, the amount of Rs. 4,500/- per month as maintenance is excessive and revisionist is not in a position to give the same to O.P. No.2, therefore, from this angle too, the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 is illegal.
8. He further submitted that during pendency of the instant revision, matter was referred to mediation and conciliation centre of this Court but due to different attitude adopted by O.P. No. 2, mediation proceeding could not be succeeded and mediation has been failed and this fact again shows that O.P. No.2 is neither willing to perform her matrimonial duties nor she is ready to settle the score.
9. He further submitted that, therefore, from the above facts it is apparent that the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the court concerned is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for O.P. No.2 opposed the prayer made by the revisionist and submitted that admittedly O.P. No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and from the record, it reflects, since the year 2017, she had to live in her paternal home as revisionist harassed her.
11. They further submitted that there is definite findings of the trial court that from the evidence available on record, it could not be reflected that O.P. No.2 started living in her paternal home without any sufficient cause and finding recorded by the trial court cannot be disturbed in the instant revision without any cogent reason. They further submitted that from the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse and against the record.
12. They further submitted that as O.P. No. 2 is wife of the revisionist, therefore, it is his duty to maintain her and as he himself admitted before the trial court that he is earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month and he is also having three room house, therefore, maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,500/- per month cannot be said to be excessive. They further submitted that even considering the inflation rate, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 4,500/- per month awarded to O.P. No.2 is excessive.
13. They further submitted that law is settled that the maintenance allowance should be of such amount on the basis of which, wife can lead a respectable life and in less than Rs. 4,500/- it is not possible for O.P. No.2 to maintain herself. They further submitted that therefore, the instant revision is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed.
14. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
15. Revisionist is husband of O.P. No.2 and it reflects, Application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. moved by O.P. No.2 has been allowed by the court concerned with the direction that revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to her from the date of filing of Application U/s 125 Cr.P.C.and in the instant revision, revisionist challenged the order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
16. From the impugned order dated 28.07.2023, it reflects, after perusing the entire evidence available on record, trial court opined that it cannot be said that without any sufficient cause, O.P. No.2 started living separately in her paternal home after leaving her matrimonial home. The findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said perverse one and in considered view of this Court, the findings of fact recorded by the trial court cannot be disturbed in the instant revision, therefore, it cannot be said that without any sufficient cause O.P. No.2 started living in her paternal home.
17. Further, being husband of O.P. No.2, it is the duty of the revisionist to maintain her. The purpose of maintenance allowance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is that wife could lead a respectable life as she is unable to maintain herself.
18. In view of this Court, considering the present inflation rate, in less than Rs. 4,500/- per month it is not possible for O.P. No.2 to maintain herself properly.
19. Further, from the record, it also reflects, before trial court revisionist admitted that his earning is around Rs. 6,000/- per month and he is also having a three room house, therefore, in my considered view, court concerned while passing the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 did not commit any illegality.
20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the court concerned is perfectly legal order and the instant revision filed by the revisionist is devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.7.2025
KK Patel
