Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 11160 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176594

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2850 of 2024

Kanhaiya Lal

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)

:

Arun Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A., Radhey Shyam Yadav

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, the 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 judgment and order dated 7th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 133/12 of 2013 (Smt. Namrata Vs. Kanhaiya Lal), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application and till the date of passing of impugned judgment and also Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

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. 5,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist as he has no source of income. He then submits that trial court, without any documentary evidence, has only on the basis of oral averments made before that since the revisionist, who is having degree of Master of Arts, takes tuition through Coaching Centre from which he earns handsome amount, 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 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. 5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist is running a coaching centre and his father has also some agricultural land from which the revisionist obtains sufficient income, therefore, he is able to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no.2. However, no documentary evidence has been led before the trial court from any side qua the aforesaid income of the revisionist.

7. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have stated anything else on any other issue.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court may record that there is no documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial that the revisionist is, having degree of M.A., running a coaching centre and his father has some agricultural land from which he receives handsome money. However, perusal of the entire record goes to show that the revisionist has not claimed that he is physically deformed.

12. 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, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.

13. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, if the revisionist, who is an able bodied person, is treated as a labourer at present, he would earn Rs. 600/- per day and his monthly income would be Rs. 18,000/- 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. 18,000/- per month would be Rs. 4,500/- per month. As such, Rs. 4,500/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no. 2 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. 4,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) from Rs. 5,000/- per month and the same shall be payable from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

16. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 7th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 133/12 of 2013 (Smt. Namrata Vs. Kanhaiya Lal), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. 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 5 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 10th October, 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.)

October 6, 2025

Sushil/-