Sharif Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 12867 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sharif Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208941
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3629 of 2024   
 
   Sharif Ahmad    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Rakesh Kumar Verma   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Deepak Singh, Diwas Verma   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist, 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. questioning the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 852 of 2022 (Smt. Zakiya Parveen Vs. Shafique Ahmad), under Section-125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court, while partly allowing the instant application filed by opposite party no.2, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no. 2 to the tune of total Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist as he has no permanent earning and he is only running a temporary toys shop at the side of any road and he somehow earns money for maintaining himself. Even otherwise, the trial court while passing the impugned judgment itself has assessed the total net income of the revisionist is Rs. 20,000/- per month and in that circumstances also, the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 is not 25% of the same, which clearly violates the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. He then submits that trial court, without any documentary evidence, has only on the basis of oral averments made before that since the revisionist is doing business of Gift Emporium, Selling of Milk and General Merchant Items from which he earns more than Rs. 1 lakh per month, has assessed wrong monthly income of the revisionist and has awarded the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 under the impugned judgment, which is not correct in the eyes of law.

4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is too excessive and exorbitant and is not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has 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. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2, from the date of filing of instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that thought the revisionist has himself stated before the trial court that he runs gift emporium from which he earns handsome money and part from that he also runs shop of general merchant and milk dairy and from all the sources, he earns more than Rs. 1 lakh per month. However,for establishing the said fact, no documentary evidence has been adduced before the trial court on behalf of opposite party no.2.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that amount awarded by the trial court towards monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no. 2 under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be illegal, therefore, the present criminal revision liable to be dismissed.

8. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.

9. 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 and son.

10. 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.

11. Qua the income of the opposite party no.2, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that there is nothing on record to establish that she is a working lady and she has any source of income in order to maintain herself. The trial court has also opined that opposite party no.2 has no source of income.

12. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that the revisionist before the trial court claims himself that he runs a temporary business of gift emporium from which he earns Rs. 5,000/- per month but on the other hand, the opposite party no.2 claims before the trial court that he has gift emporium shop, milk dairy and general merchant shop from which he earns more than Rs. 1 lakh per month but no documentary evidence has been adduced by any of the parties i.e. revisionist or opposite party no.2 from which is impossible to ascertain the exact monthly income of the revisionist.

13. Under that circumstances, this Court goes with the assessment made by the trial court qua the monthly income of the revisionist, as per the total monthly income of revisionist is Rs. 20,000/- per month.

14. 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.

15. Keeping in view 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 of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 25% of Rs. 20,000/- per month would be Rs. 5,000/- per month. As such, Rs. 5,000/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no. 2 (wife) is just reasonable and realistic. Accordingly, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- per month from Rs. 6,000/- per month as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgmentl in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of the instant application.

16. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 852 of 2022 (Smt. Zakiya Parveen Vs. Shafique Ahmad), under Section-125 Cr.P.C. is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs. 6,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. Since the revisionist has no regular source of income, it would be too harsh for him to pay arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in one stroke. This Court therefore, provides that the same shall be paid by the revisionist in 10 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 15th December, 2025

17. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance allowance as awarded by the court below shall be calculated on the basis of amount of maintenance allowance 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.

18. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

19. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

November 21, 2025

Sushil/-