Neeraj Goel vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 12698 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Neeraj Goel vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:206507
 
 
 
  
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3314 of 2023   
 
   Neeraj Goel    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Kalp Dev Mishra, Pradeep Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Pravin Kumar Mishra, Rajesh Chandra Gupta   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 92
 
   
 
 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.     

1. Heard Sri Kalp Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pravin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge/Family Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 917 of 2022 (Meenakshi Goel Vs. Neeraj), under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Beeta-2, District- Gautam Budhh Nagar and order dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 27 of 2022 by which the revisionist was directed to pay a maintenance for Rs. 18,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 07.05.1999 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of wedlock, two children born out. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 being an ambitious lady started creating problems and pressurizing the revisionist to live separately from the family members. It is further submitted that revisionist wanted to keep his wife with him, but the opposite party no. 2 is not living with him without any reason. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar, but the revisionist has not received any notice issued by the concerned court. It is further submitted that without service of notice, the learned trial court proceeded ex parte against the revisionist and passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2022. It is further submitted that the revisionist thereafter filed an application for recalling the order dated 26.09.2022, but the same was dismissed by the concerned court vide order dated 06.04.2023.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is working in a private sector and is earning only Rs. 30,000/- per month. The learned court itself in the impugned order has assessed income of the revisionist as 30,000/- without any documentary evidence of the income. Learned trial court has awarded Rs. 18,000/- per month as maintenance for opposite party no. 2 which is excessive and against the settled principal of law. It is prayed that either the matter be remitted back to the learned trial court or the the impugned order be modified accordingly.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the opposite party no. 2 married the revisionist and he started harassing and torturing the opposite party no. 2 and was not taking care of his wife. Thereafter, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the opposite party no. 2. Notice was sent to the revisionist, but the same could not served upon him and due to which the learned trial court proceeded ex parte and passed order dated 02.06.2022. It is further submitted that the revisionist is a hale and hearty and is working in private sector and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence regarding earning of the revisionist is brought on record. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court and the impugned order has been passed as per provisions of law.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned Principal Family Court had decided the application filed by opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ex parte vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2022 whereas no notice or summon has been received by the revisionist. He further submits that the revisionist filed an application to recall the ex parte order and heard the application on merit, but the said application was also dismissed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court dated 06.04.2023.

7. As per record, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by opposite party no. 2 against the revisionist and the same was decided ex parte vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2022. As per order, notices were served upon the revisionist and vakalatnama was also filed on his behalf, but no written objection was filed by him and even he did not turn up during trial, thereafter proceedings against him were decided ex parte vide order dated 02.06.2022. The learned trial court in order dated 06.04.2023 has clearly mentioned that advocate Sri Mohit Kumar Bhati has filed a vakalatnama in the file which proves that notices were served upon the revisionist. It cannot be said that the revisionist has not received any notice issued by the court. Hence, the learned court has not committed any illegality in proceeding ex parte against the revisionist.

8. On hearing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is an admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist. The opposite party no.2 has also admitted that she is not living with the him. It has also been admitted before the Court that the revisionist is working in a private sector and also getting a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month and a pay sleep has been filed by the revisionist which is annexed at page no. 53 of the paper book, but learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not produce any documentary evidence regarding alleged salary of Rs. 40,000/- of the revisionist. The learned Trial Court awarded the maintenance amount as mentioned above in paragraph no. 4. Now, the main question is whether the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is liable to be modified or not.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801, has observed:

"16. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife's parents is also immaterial. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the court."

10. Similarly, in Shailja and another v. Khobbanna, (2018), 12 SCC 199, it has been observed:

"5. That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that Appellant I was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether Appellant 1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements Merely because Appellant 1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court."

11. 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.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh (supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (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 meager that it drives the wife to penury.

13. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the maintenance amounts awarded by the learned Family Court is not as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), therefore, the judgment and order dated 06.04.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge/Family Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar is required to be modified accordingly.

14. Consequently, judgment and order dated 06.04.2023, passed by the Principal Judge/Family Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 917 of 2022 (Meenakshi Goel Vs. Neeraj Goel), under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of filing of the application.

15. This Court, also, provides that the arrears of maintenance amount shall be paid by the revisionist monthly by 7th day of each month.

16. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance amount, as awarded by the Court below, shall be calculated on the basis of amount of maintenance amount 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.

17. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed in terms of above mentioned conditions.

18. Copy of the order be sent to the learned trial court concerned for necessary compliance.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

November 18, 2025

Anjali