Allahabad High Court
Bhanu Pratap vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:201697
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3525 of 2024
Bhanu Pratap
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
-
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
-
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 19 of 2018 (Smt. Kiran Nishad vs. Bhanu Pratap) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of the application.
-
Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the applicant is an Intermediate pass and earns merely Rs. 4,000?5,000/- per month by working as a carpenter. He is financially weak and is unable to maintain a separate household with his wife, opposite party no. 2, and he has to look after his aged parents, who are dependent upon him and are suffering from various old-age ailments. It is argued that the learned court below has passed the impugned order of maintenance without properly appreciating the poor financial condition and liabilities of the revisionist. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is living separately from her husband without any sufficient or valid reason. The court below failed to consider the essential ingredients of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and passed the order of maintenance merely on presumption, ignoring the evidence and statements adduced on behalf of the revisionist. The amount of maintenance awarded is highly excessive and unjustified in the given circumstances. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 2 is receiving maintenance from other proceedings as well.
-
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, as well as the learned A.G.A., opposed the prayer and contended that the revisionist runs a furniture shop which was earlier being run by his father, as admitted by the revisionist himself. This fact is apparent from page 6 of the impugned judgment. Considering the present inflation, the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the capacity of the revisionist. It was further submitted that the revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
-
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and the record of the case including the impugned order, it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also reflected from the record that opposite party no. 2 was being tortured on account of demand of additional dowry by the revisionist and his family members, and on 23.10.2014, she was ousted from her matrimonial home. The learned Trial Court has categorically recorded its reasoning regarding the separate living of opposite party no. 2 with sufficient justification and has also found that she is unable to maintain herself. While deciding issue no. 4, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the revisionist runs a furniture shop. However, at page 6 of the judgment, it is reflected that opposite party no. 2 herself admitted that her husband works at his father?s shop. The revisionist, at the same page, admitted that he works as a carpenter and earns about Rs. 4,000?5,000/- per month. In the grounds of revision, he has admitted that he works as a carpenter, meaning thereby he is a skilled labourer. There is no document on record to establish his exact income; however, it is an admitted fact that he is a skilled person engaged in carpentry at his father?s shop. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, it is uncertain, but even if he is considered to be a skilled labourer, it would be reasonable to assume that he earns approximately Rs. 800/- per day, amounting to about Rs. 24,000/- per month. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. 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, it has been observed that maintenance may be granted up to the extent of 25% of the husband?s net income. Accordingly, 25% of Rs. 24,000/- comes to Rs. 6,000/- per month.
-
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month as awarded by the learned Trial Court is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, but the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to his income. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the court below appears to be excessive and deserves to be modified. Hence, it is reduced from Rs. 7,000/- per month to Rs. 6,000/- per month, payable from the date of the order.
-
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. The amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 7,000/- per month to Rs. 6,000/- per month, payable from the date of the order. In case opposite party no. 2 is receiving any maintenance from any other forum or proceedings, the same shall be duly adjusted in the light of the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra), on the principle that the smaller amount shall be adjusted against the higher amount.
-
In case the revisionist has already paid any amount towards maintenance, the same shall be adjusted and calculated on the basis of the order passed by this Court. If any arrears remain unpaid, the revisionist shall pay the same in ten equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15th December, 2025, and the remaining nine instalments shall be paid on or before the fifteenth day of each succeeding calendar month.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
November 13, 2025
pks
