Nagendra Alias Nihal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 12320 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nagendra Alias Nihal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:199168
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4130 of 2024   
 
   Nagendra Alias Nihal Singh    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Manoj Kumar Srivastava   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Pankaj Kumar   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 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 judgment and order dated 20th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Aligarh in Case No. 1632 of 2019 (Smt. Priyanka @ Sheetal Vs. Nagendra) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Dadon, District-Aligarh, whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance on 7th day of each calendar from the date of filing of instant application

3. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no. 2 to the tune of total Rs. 6,000/- per month is too excessive and exorbitant because at present the revisionist is unemployed and has no source of income and he somehow earns few money for his livelihood as a labourer. He further submits that Since the revisionist has degrees of M.Com and B.Ed. degree, earlier he used to earn handsome money by taking tuition in coaching but now since children are taking online coaching, the coaching of the revisionist has come to an end and now he has no source to earn money.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that considering the above facts and circumstances, the amount of maintenance allowance by the trial court under the impugned judgment may be reduced to some extent.

5. 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. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that it is not undisputed fact that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and it is obligatory upon him to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no. 2. It is next submitted that the revisionist, being an able bodied person, is having a degrees of B.Com. and B.Ed. and he also takes tuition. Apart from that, the revisionist's father has a shop, some agricultural land and two houses and in that circumstance he being the only son of his father, earns handsome amount. He, therefore, submits that amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not committed any error in the eyes of law, therefore, present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

8. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, whereas opposite party no.3 is his real son and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and real son.

10. Since learned counsel for the revisionist has not stated anything about the separate living of opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist, this Court has nothing to record or discuss anything about it.

11. From the impugned judgment it transpires that the trial court has not considered the fact that the revisionist is unemployed and without assessing his real income, the trial court under the impugned judgment has awarded Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance. In support of the claim of the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist having degrees of M.Com and B.Ed. uses to take tuition and earns handsome money, his father has a shop, some agricultural land and two house from which the revisionist being only son of his father earns some money, no documentary evidence has been produced before the trial court.

12. It is admitted position that the revisionist has not claimed that he is not physically deformed. The revisionist is an able bodied person and he is having degrees of M.Com and B.Ed. For such a highly educated person, he has every scope of taking tuition and earns money.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.

14. In the case in hand, it is admitted facts that the revisionist is a highly educated person having degrees of B.Com and B.Ed. and he may earn money from taking tuition and being an able bodied person he may also earn money from other work and from agricultural work. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, the revisionist would have earned Rs. 20,000/- per month.

15. 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.

16. Keeping in view of 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 incommensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 20,000/- per month would be Rs. 5,000/- per month. As such, Rs. 5,000/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no. 2 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. 5,000/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) from Rs. 6,000/- per month and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of instant application.

17. Consequently, judgment and order dated 20th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Aligarh in Case No. 1632 of 2019 (Smt. Priyanka @ Sheetal Vs. Nagendra) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Dadon, District-Aligarh is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application.

18. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist states that the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance has become very high which the revisionist cannot pay in one stroke, hence he requests the court to order the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance to be deposited in several installments.

19. Considering the request of the learned counsel for the revisionist being bona fide, this Court provides that the revisionist shall pay the total amount of arrears of monthly maintenance allowance in 5 equal monthly installments. The first installment shall commence from 5th December, 2025.

20. 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.

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

22. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

November 11, 2025

Sushil/-