Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Khare vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208959
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4440 of 2024
Abhishek Khare
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Manisha Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Satish Kumar Tyagi
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, in Case No. 810 of 2013 (Smt. Shikha Khare vs. Abhishek Khare) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application filed by opposite party no. 2 has been partly allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of institution of the application (08.10.2013) till the date of decision, and thereafter Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 06.02.2011 at Lucknow in an arranged marriage. However, soon after the marriage, serious matrimonial differences surfaced between the parties, resulting in multiple litigations. Opposite party no. 2 lodged Case No. 456 of 2013 alleging offences under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The revisionist, on his part, instituted Case No. 225 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Opposite party no. 2 appeared initially in those proceedings but later stopped participating, resulting in an ex parte decree dated 28.02.2015. Subsequently, the revisionist filed Divorce Petition No. 607 of 2018 (Old No. 630 of 2016), which again proceeded ex parte and was decreed on 06.04.2019.
4. During the pendency of these proceedings, opposite party no. 2 also initiated a case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and filed Divorce Petition No. 1066 of 2013; however, both matters were dismissed for want of prosecution, along with her application for recall. The revisionist thereafter moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that opposite party no. 2 had made false statements, but the same was rejected. Ultimately, in Case No. 810 of 2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, by order dated 18.05.2024, awarded monthly maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2, which order is now under challenge in the present criminal revision.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite party no. 2 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any compelling reason and is therefore disentitled to maintenance. He further contends that there was no act of cruelty or desertion on his part and that the wife alone is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.
6. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 was allegedly employed at Dial-112 and earning sufficiently, and therefore was not entitled to any support. He also stated that his wife and her family had wrongly believed that he worked in the Public Works Department (PWD), whereas in reality he is only an Intermediate-pass and earns his livelihood as a daily-wage worker. It is further contended that proceedings under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act were filed by him, but no effort was made by opposite party no. 2 to contest the proceedings under Section 9 and 13, which shows that she was not willing to reside with him. Had she genuinely wished to live with him, she would have come forward to file her objections under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the revision and submits that the revisionist concealed his true educational qualification at the time of marriage, created a false impression of being employed in P.W.D., and thereafter subjected opposite party no. 2 to mental and emotional cruelty. it is further submitted that the revisionist was always fully aware of her pre-marital relationship. It is argued that the allegations now raised are afterthoughts to evade maintenance. It is further contended that the revisionist is financially stable, has contracted a second marriage after the ex parte divorce decree, and is maintaining his second wife and a male child born from that wedlock, which demonstrates his earning capacity. The order of the Family Court is stated to be just and proper and call for no interference by this Court.
8. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and examining the record, this Court finds that the fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist is undisputed. The revisionist's allegation that the wife left the matrimonial home without any reason is not supported by the surrounding facts. The material shows that the marriage suffered serious shocks right at the very beginning. The revisionist himself states that soon after the marriage he came to know that opposite party no. 2 was already pregnant before the marriage. In the social conditions of this country, such a disclosure naturally creates emotional distress, mistrust and a sense of betrayal in the mind of a husband.
9. Similarly, the opposite party no. 2 discovered immediately after marriage that the revisionist was not employed in the PWD, as she had been led to believe, and that he was only an Intermediate-pass working as a daily-wage labourer. This caused disappointment and emotional strain on her part as well. Thus, both parties were confronted with unexpected circumstances that disturbed the foundation of their relationship. In these facts, the subsequent separation cannot be termed voluntary desertion by the wife; rather, it was a result of the loss of trust and the tensions that arose on both sides. Therefore, the plea of the revisionist that she left the matrimonial home without just cause cannot be accepted. It also appears from the record that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 08-03-2013, but the objection was filed by the revisionist only on 03-08-2022, after obtaining an ex-parte decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which indicates that the revisionist himself wanted to get rid of her.
10. The allegation that the wife was employed under the Dial-112 scheme also does not stand proved. No documentary evidence such as appointment letters, salary statements, employer certification, or testimony has been furnished. In her cross-examination, the wife denied having any salaried employment. In the absence of cogent proof, the Family Court rightly concluded that the wife has no independent income.
11. In Paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment, the Family Court examined the income of the revisionist based on the pleadings and affidavits filed by both parties. The opposite party no. 2 asserted that the revisionist is engaged in private contract work and earns between Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- per month. The revisionist, on the other hand, claimed in his affidavit that he works as a munshi under a contractor in Lucknow and earns Rs. 8,500/- per month. As far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, it is an admitted fact that there is no documentary evidence on record regarding his income. However, even if the revisionist is considered to be a labourer, it would be reasonable to assume that he earns approximately Rs. 700/- per day, amounting to about Rs. 21,000/- 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. 21,000/- comes to Rs. 5,250/- per month.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month payable to opposite party no. 2 from the date of the application is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that a husband has a legal obligation 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. Accordingly, it is reduced from Rs. 6,000/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month, payable from the date of the application.
13 Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. The amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 6,000/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month, payable from the date of the application.
14. It is made clear that the amount of maintenance shall be calculated on the basis of the present order. If the revisionist has already paid any amount towards maintenance, the same shall be duly adjusted. In case any arrears remain unpaid, the revisionist shall clear them in ten equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 10th 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 20, 2025
pks
