Allahabad High Court
Vivek Kumar Pal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:206212
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1530 of 2023
Vivek Kumar Pal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Arun Kumar Pal, Yadvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Kirti Kumar Nirkhi, Shobhit Saxena
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. List has been revised. Sri Arun Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State are present whereas none present for the opposite party no. 2 and 3.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge/Family Court, Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 35 of 2022 (Smt. Shiva Pal @ Khushabu and another vs. Vivek Kumar Pal), under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that marriage of the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 03.12.2016 and one child has been born out of the wedlock. It is further submitted that the revisionist never made any demand of dowry and never harassed the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2, being an ambitious lady, never wanted to live in joint family and she also pressurized the revisionist to live separately and to transfer a plot as well as a house in her favour. It is further submitted that the revisionist filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During pendency of the said suit, an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party no. 2 and the same stood allowed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, court no. 4, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 22.02.2023 and the revisionist was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- in favour of opposite party no. 3 (minor daughter). It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that this order has been passed against the facts of the case. The revisionist is working in army and getting a salary of Rs. 34,500/-. He further submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that impugned order has been passed as per provisions of law. Opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and a child was born out of this marriage. The revisionist is harassing and torturing the opposite party no. 2 and demanding dowry. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the revisionist is working in armed forces and getting monthly salary of Rs. 34,500/-. Learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order.
5. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and marriage was solemnized on 03.12.2016 and out of wedlock, one child was borne out. The opposite party no. 2 filed application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. During pendency of the application, an application for interim maintenance was filed which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 22.02.2023. It is an admitted fact that the revisionist is working in armed forces and getting the salary of Rs. 34,500/- per month. The learned trial court has directed the revisionist to pay interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- to his wife (opposite party no. 2) and Rs. 2,000/- to his daughter (opposite party no. 3).
6. On hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist who is living with her parents. It is an admitted fact that the revisionist is working in army and getting a salary of Rs. 34,500/- per month. The learned trial court awarded maintenance as mentioned above in para no.2. Now the main allegation is whether the maintenance awarded by the learned trial court is liable to be modified or not.
7. 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."
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. As on record, the revisionist is working in army and is getting salary of Rs. 34,500/- per month. The learned trial court has awarded a maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of opposite party no. 2 and 2,000/- in favour of opposite party no. 3. This Court finds that the maintenance amount awarded by the learned family court is as per the principal laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, therefore, the judgment and order dated 22.02.2023 has been passed as per provisions of law and there is no illegality in passing of the impugned order. Hence the revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
November 18, 2025
Anjali
