Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12019 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:193089
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3905 of 2024   
 
   Pradeep Kumar Shukla    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Anil Kumar Bind   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Arun Kumar Tripathi, G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Heard Mr. Anil kumar Bind, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment and order dated 28th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 140/12/2018 (Smt. Sweta Shukla & Another Vs. Pradeep Kumar Shukla) under Section-125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Farrukhabad, whereby the trial court, while partly allowing the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 2,500/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) (total 3000+2500= Rs. 5,500/- per month) towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till date of passing of the impugned judgment and further to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) (total 20,000+5,000= Rs. 25,000/- per month) towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

3. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the 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 from the date of passing of the impugned judgment i.e. 28th June, 2024 is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist as he is working as Government Basic Teacher in the Parishidya Vidyalaya of the State Government and after mandatory deductions and also after paying the amount of E.M.I. and rental accommodation, he receives Rs. 35,000/- per month.

4. 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.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 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 in passing the impugned judgment and awarding Rs. 20,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 (daughter) i.e. total Rs.25,000/- per month, from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that as per the salary slip filed by the opposite party no.2 as paper no.53B before the trial court, he is getting Rs. 71,273/- per month as salary.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 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.

8. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that it is an admitted position from the salary slip of the revisionist, who is a government teacher in a basic school of the State Government, is getting salary of Rs. 71,273/- per month.

13. 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.

14. 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. 71,273/-, is Rs. 17,818.25/- i.e. Rs. 18,000/- per month in round figure. As such, Rs. 18,000/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (wife and daughter respectively) is 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. 18,000/- per month in total in fovour of opposite party nos.2 (wife) and opposite party no.3 (daughter) from Rs. 25,000/- per month in total and the same shall be payable from the date of passing of the impugned judgment i.e. 28th June, 2024.

15. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 28th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 140/12/2018 (Smt. Sweta Shukla & Another Vs. Pradeep Kumar Shukla) under Section-125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Farrukhabad is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs. 20,000/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 in place of Rs. 5,000/- 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.

16. 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.

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

18. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

November 3, 2025

Sushil/-