Allahabad High Court
Sunil vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:201974
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5536 of 2024
Sunil
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Jay Prakash Pandey, Umesh Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Amir Khan, G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Amir Khna, 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. with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 12th July, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 353 of 2021 (Smt. Pooja Vs. Sunil), under Section 127 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Binawar, District-Buduan, 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 towards monthly maintenance allowance 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. 3,000/- per month is too excessive and exorbitant and is incommensurate with the income of the revisionist on the ground that at present the revisionist is unemployed and has no source of income and he somehow earns few money for his livelihood as labourer. The trial court, only on the basis of averments made by opposite party no.2 during the course of trial that the revisionist works in a Finance Company from which he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month, also he has 15 bighas agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 1 lakh in a year and part from that he sells milk from which he receives Rs. 15,000/- per month and from all the sources, he receives total Rs. 33, 000/- per month, has awarded the aforesaid monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 despite the fact that no documentary evidence in that regard has been produced before the trial court.
4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that considering the above facts and circumstances, the amount of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment may be reduced to some extent.
5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the 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. 3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 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. On the above premise, learned A.G.A. 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.
7. 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 and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party no.2 has any source of income so that she may maintain herself.
8. 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.
9. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court may record that in support of the averments made by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court with regard to above income of the revisionist, no documentary evidence has been produced, therefore, this Court cannot considered the same. However, it is admitted by the revisionist himself that he is a labourer and the revisionist has not claimed that he is not physically deformed. The revisionist is an able bodied person.
10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.
11. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, the revisionist, who is an able bodied person and a labourer would have earned Rs. 600/- per day, meaning thereby his monthly income would be Rs. 18,000/- per month.
12. 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.
13. 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 which has been enhanced by the trial court under the impugned order in the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of opposite party no. 2 to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month is already in lower side as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases on the ground that 25% of Rs. 18,000/- per month would be total Rs. 4,500/- per month. In such circumstances, the total amount enhanced by the trial court to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.
14. Consequently, since the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
15. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
November 13, 2025
Sushil/-
