Surjeet Singh vs State Of Up And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12018 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Surjeet Singh vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 3 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:193397
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 761 of 2024   
 
   Surjeet Singh    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Up And 2 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Prateek Mishra, Siddhartha Baghel   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Saurabh Pandey   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. This matter is being taken up out of turn on the mention made by Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, who submits that a copy of the mention slip has duly been served upon Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 today itself but he is not present.The mention slip placed before this Court be taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment and order dated 16th December, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonebhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 47 of 2018 ( Garima Singh & Another Vs. Surjeet Singh), under Section-125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Chopan, District-Sonebhadra, whereby the trial court, while partly allowing the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) (total 15,000+10,000= Rs. 25,000/- per month) towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Only challenging the quantum of total amount of monthly maintenance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the revisionist has advanced his arguments in two folds:

(i) It is strange to say that when the application filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 before the trial court i.e. 24th January, 2018, monthly salary of the revisionist was approximately Rs. 47,000/- per month (copy of the bank statement of account has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the present criminal revision), and when the impugned judgment has been passed i.e. 16th December, 2023, the revisionist's salary was approximately Rs. 73,000/- per month (as per the affidavit filed by the revisionist before the trial court), then how did the trial court, considering both the circumstances as one, award monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under the impugned judgment?

(ii). Even if it is assumed that in both the circumstances i.e. between the period 2018 to 2023, the monthly salary of the revisionist was approximately Rs. 73,000/-, the total amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of total Rs. 25,000/- per month is still too much excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist, which is de hors the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is too excessive and exorbitant and is not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and awarding Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 (daughter) i.e. total Rs.25,000/- per month, from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

7. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that as per the affidavit filed by the revisionist before the trial court, his monthly income has been shown as Rs. 77,345/- per month as salary.

8. On the above premise, learned A.G.A. submits that amount awarded by the trial court towards monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be illegal, therefore, the present criminal revision liable to be dismissed.

9. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that it is an admitted case that the opposite party nos. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party nos. 3 is real daughter of the revisionist respectively and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and daughter.

11. So far as separate living of the opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist is concerned, the trial court has categorically recorded that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband at her parental house with sufficient cause. In the opinion of the Court, the finding returned by the trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, on the said issue is a categorical finding of fact. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

12. Qua the income of the opposite party no.2, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that there is nothing on record to establish that she is a working lady and she has any source of income in order to maintain herself. The trial court has also opined that opposite party no.2 has no source of income.

13. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that it is an admitted position from the affidavit filed by the revisionist before the trial court just before passing of the impugned judgment i.e. in 2023, who is a government teacher in a basic school of the State Government, was getting salary of Rs. 77, 345/- per month. This Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court while awarding monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under the impugned judgment has committed error. The trial court has lost sight of the fact that when the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2018, the salary of the revisionist could not be Rs. 77,345/- per month, which was in 2023, so even at that time when the salary of the revisionist was less, it was not justified for the trial court to award maintenance of total Rs. 25000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under the impugned judgment. The salary of an employee/official increases as per the increment, which increases year to year. Thus, if the average from 24th January, 2018 to 16th December, 2023 i.e. from the date of filing of instant application till the date of passing of the impugned judgment, is calculated, then it can be assumed that the total monthly salary of the revisionist would have been Rs 50,000/-. It is also an admitted position as per the affidavit filed by the revisionist before the trial court, the monthly salary of the revisionist was Rs. 77,345/- per month.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) 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.

15. Keeping in view the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 50,000/- per month (at the time of filing of instant application), is Rs. 12,500/- and also 25% of Rs. 77,345/- (at the time of passing of impugned judgment) is Rs. 19,336.25/- i.e. 19,000/- per month in round figure. As such, total Rs. 12,500/- from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till the date of passing of the impugned judgment and total Rs.19,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgement towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (wife and daughter respectively) are just, reasonable and realistic. Accordingly, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is reduced to Rs. 12,500/- per month in total in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and opposite party no.3 (daughter) towards monthly maintenance allowance from Rs. 25,000/- per month in total, which shall be payable from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till the date of passing of the impugned judgment and Rs. 19,000/- per month from Rs. 25,000/- per month, which shall be payable from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

16. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 16th December, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonebhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 47 of 2018 ( Garima Singh & Another Vs. Surjeet Singh), under Section-125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Chopan, District-Sonebhadra, is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs. 15,000/- per month and Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.3 in place of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application till the date of passing of the impugned judgment. Similarly, the revisionist shall pay Rs. 12,000.- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards monthly maintenance allowance in place of Rs. 25,000/- per month and Rs. 7,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) in place of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. Since the total amount of arrears of maintenance allowance as awarded by this Court herein above becomes very large, therefore, it would be too harsh for the revisionist to pay the same in one stroke, therefore, this Court provides that the same shall be paid in 7 equal monthly installments and the first installment shall commence from 20th November, 2025.

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.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

November 3, 2025

Sushil/-