Allahabad High Court
Sachin Rana vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:200806
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3439 of 2024
Sachin Rana
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Daya Shanker Pandey, Shreshtha Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Shreesh Bahadur Tripathi
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist and short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Daya Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shreesh Bahadur Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Aligarh in Case No. 751 of 2019 (Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan & Anr. Vs. Sachin Rana), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party no.3 from the date of application to the date i.e. on 31.03.2022 and from 01.04.2025 revisionist has been directed to pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is working private job in Company namely Gama Neon Signs, Sahibabad and as per salary slip issued by the Company, revisionist getting salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. Hence, the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is excessive, exorbitant, and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist is the only son of his parents and there exists a three-storied house measuring 80 square yards situated at Shahdara, Delhi, which has been let out on rent to one Devesh. The revisionist hardly carrying out his livelihood. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that he has also responsibility of his old parents however, without appreciating these facts and merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the trial court has awarded a total amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the date of impugned judgment, despite there being no cogent evidence adduced by opposite party no.2 to establish the actual income of the revisionist.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submits that the opposite party no.2 is already receiving Rs.6,000/- per month under the judgment and order passed by the trial court in the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of D.V. Act. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that where maintenance is awarded in more than one proceeding, the amount awarded in one proceeding shall be adjusted against the amount awarded in any one of proceedings and the wife shall be entitled to higher amount awarded in either of the proceeding.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that revisionist himself filed some photographs of anniversary, birthdays and picnic on several occasion and the person who is earning Rs. 12,000/- cannot afford same, which clearly shows that the income of the revisionist which have been shown by the revisionist is not correct as he is earning some more amount. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admitted that there is no evidence on record regarding his actual income except the income filed by the revisionist i.e. salary slip issued by the aforesaid Company.
7. Except these issue, no other arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no. 3 is his son. However, opposite party no.2 has claimed that the revisionist has working in private job in Company namely Gama Neon Signs, Sahibabad and getting salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month but it is also admitted that fact that the revisionist is only son of his parents and exists a three-storied house in the name of his mother measuring 80 square yards situated at Shahdara, Delhi, which has been let out on rent to one Devesh. It is admitted fact that the father of the revisionist was retired from the post of Electrical Engineer from the private firm. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the revisionist has actual income of Rs. 12,000/- per month, the trial court has also did not believe on the income of the revisionist claimed by him and reach at the conclusion that the income of the revisionist is more than that claimed by him.
9. Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that if a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife and children, the Magistrate of the First Class, upon being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, may order such person to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of the wife and children.
10. In this context, not only the salary of the revisionist but his overall status also taken into consideration. The words "sufficient means" used in Section 125 Cr.P.C. indicates that the person may have other sources of income as well. However, the trial court has assessed the income of the revisionist at Rs. 80,000/- per month, though there is no evidence on record to show the income of the revisionist.
11. Considering the status of the revisionist, who is the only son of his parents and keeping in view the property and income claimed to be shown in the family, this Court is of the view that the income of the revisionist should reasonably be presumed to be Rs. 50,000/- per month. Keeping in view of the income of the revisionist as well as guide line issued by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the revisionist which comes to Rs. 12000/-.
12. Thus, in view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party no.3 from the date of application to the date i.e. on 31.03.2022 and from 01.04.2025 revisionist has been directed to pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife but the amount of maintenance should be commensurate with the income of the husband. Hence, the maintenance allowance awarded by the court below seems to be excessive and deserves to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs. 4,000/- from Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2. and to Rs. 2000/- from Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 from the date of application to the date of impugned order and to Rs. 6,000/- from Rs. 10000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2. and to Rs. 6000/- from Rs. 10000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 from the date of order. The arrears of amount shall be calculated on the basis of the maintenance amount fixed by the Court 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.
13. It reflects from the record that the opposite party no.2 is already receiving Rs.6000/- per month under the judgment and order passed by the trial court in the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of D.V. Act. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that where maintenance is awarded in more than one proceeding, the amount awarded in one proceeding shall be adjusted against the amount awarded in any one of proceedings and the wife shall be entitled to higher amount awarded in either of the proceeding.
14. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to above extent.
15. It has been apprised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there is huge amount of arrears, which are to be paid by the revisionist, which cannot be paid in one stroke, therefore, it is divided in 20 equal installments. The first installment shall fall due on December 15th, 2025. The remaining installments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
November 12, 2025
Akbar
