Rajesh Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12403 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajesh Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:200346
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2562 of 2024   
 
   Rajesh Sharma    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Anil Kumar Shukla
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Case is called out in the revised list, no one appears for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, despite the fact that as per the office report notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 despite the fact that notice has been served upon them as per the office report dated 10th October, 2025.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, 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 judgment and order dated 29th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1511 of 2019 (Smt. Poonam & Another Vs. Rajesh Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Zarifnagar, District-Budaun, whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 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. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) i.e. total Rs. 5,000/- in total towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist in two folds

(i) The monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of total Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of filing of instant application is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net monthly income of the revisionist because at present the revisionist is a lobourer under the MANREGA scheme launched by the Central Government and he earns Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 48,000/- per year and in that regard he has filed his income certificate attested by notary as Application No. 108 Kha, which has been mentioned in paragraph-22 of the impugned judgment. The aforesaid document has completely been ignored by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment.

(ii). The opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband along with opposite party no.3 without any sufficient cause. Therefore, as per Section 125 (4) C.P.C., she is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance from the revisionist.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspects which have been raised by the revisionist before the trial 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 monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, referred to above, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He then submits that the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive in any manner and is commensurate with the income of the revisionist and not de hors the rules. However, no documentary evidence has been led before the trial court from any side qua the aforesaid income of the revisionist, as is admitted on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

7. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist with sufficient cause and in that regard the trial court has recorded categorical findings of fact.

8. Except the above issues, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the 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 minor daughter and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and also his real daughter and son. .

10. So far as separate living of the opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist along with her daughter is concerned, the trial court while deciding issue no. 2, which has been framed during the course of trial, has categorically recorded that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband at her parental house with sufficient cause. In connection with the same, it has been recorded by the trial court in paragraph no. 15 of the impugned judgment, which is at page no. 16 of the paper book that the revisionist has lodged Case Crime No. 05 of 2016 under sections 342, 504, 506 and 323 I.P.C. at Police Station-Palimukeempur District Aligarh against the opposite party no.2 and her family members. The revisionist has also lodged Case Crime No. 298 of 2021 under Sections 323, 505 and 392 I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, District Budaun against opposite party no.2 and her family members. The aforementioned facts show that there would have been strained and incompatible relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2. 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 after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial. 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 may record that no documentary evidence has been produced by opposite party no.2 before the trial court qua the exact monthly income of the revisionist. However, the revisionist has filed his income certificate, which has been attested notary by means of Application No. 108-Kha, before the trial court, wherein the monthly income of the revisionist has been shown as Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 48,000/- per year.

13. Considering the fact that there is no evidence as to what is the exact monthly income of the revisionist and the fact that the said income certificate filed by the revisionist before the trial court has not been verified by any competent authority and also the fact that in these hard days when the price of everything like food, clothes, medicines has increased and the wages of the people doing all the work have also increased, then it is also not acceptable that a labourer like the revisionist can earn only Rs 4000 per month. In the opinion of the Court, at present time, a labourer earns Rs 600 per day, meaning thereby that he would earn Rs. 18,000/- per month.

14. 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 his children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.

15. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, if the revisionist, who is an able bodied person, is treated as a labourer at present, he would earn Rs. 600/- per day and his monthly income would be Rs. 18,000/- per month.

16. 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 husband/revisionist nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury.

17. 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. 18,000/- per month would be Rs. 4,500/- per month. As such, Rs. 4,500/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 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. 4,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and opposite party no.3 (daughter) from Rs. 5,000/- per month in total and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of instant application.

18. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 29th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1511 of 2019 (Smt. Poonam & Another Vs. Rajesh Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Zarifnagar, District-Budaun, is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application.

19. 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.

20. 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 10 equal monthly installments. The first installment shall commence from 5th December, 2025.

21. 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.

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

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

November 12, 2025

Sushil/-