Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kant Alias Krishna Kant Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176261
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5598 of 2024
Krishna Kant Alias Krishna Kant Mishra
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Anurudh Kumar Prajapati, Deepak Kumar Prajapati
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Amit Kumar Pandey, G.A.
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 21st August, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 20 of 2011 (Smt. Manorama Devi & 2 Others Vs. Kishnakant), under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) from the date of filing of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. till the date of passing of the impugned judgment, whereas Rs. 2,500/- each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 (daughters) from the date of filing of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. till the date of attaining their majority, towards maintenance allowance (total Rs. 2,000+2,500+2,500= Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos. 2 to 4) and also Rs.5,000/- to opposite party no.2 from the date of passing of the impugned judgment till the date of her second marriage.
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 nos. 2 to 4 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 the revisionist is a taxi driver by which he earns Rs. 4,500/- per month. He then submits that the trial court, without any documentary evidence, has only on basis of oral averments made before that since the revisionist, who is a taxi driver, is running an iron and plastic shop, a press and also he has some agricultural lands from which he earns handsome amount, has assessed the wrong monthly income of the revisionist and has awarded the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos.2 to 4 under the impugned judgment, which is not correct in the eyes of law. It is also submitted by the revisionist that since opposite party nos. 3 and 4 have attained the age of majority, therefore, they are not entitled to any maintenance allowance from the revisionist from the date of their majority.
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, 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, having some agricultural land, running an iron and plastic shop, a press and also he is a taxi driver by which he obtains sufficient income, therefore, he is able to maintain his wife i.e. opposite party no.2 and his two daughters i.e. opposite party nos. 3 and 4. He, however, admits that no documentary evidence has been led before the trial court from any side qua the aforesaid income of the revisionist. He lastly submits that the instant application has been filed in the year 2011 and for few periods, interim maintenance allowance was granted in favour of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 but such financial assistance was not much enough to opposite party no.2 in performance of the marriage of her one of daughter Neha i.e. opposite party no. 3.
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 some agricultural land, running an iron and plastic pipe shop, a press and he is a taxi driver. The revisionist before the trial court has admitted that he is a taxi driver and he is not 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 an skill driver at present (according to his own admission before the trial court), he would earn Rs. 800/- per day and his monthly income would be Rs. 24,000/- 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 of 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. 24,000/- per month would be Rs. 6,000/- per month. As such, total Rs. 2,000+2,500+2,500= Rs. 7,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 is excessive, meaning thereby that Rs. 6,000/- per month which is 25% of Rs. 24,000/- per month 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. 6,000/- per month from Rs.7,000/- per month in fovour of opposite party nos.2 to 4 from the date of filing of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
16. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 21st August, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 20 of 2011 (Smt. Manorama Devi & 2 Others Vs. Kishnakant), under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 3,000/- per month in fovour of opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Rs. 1,500/- per month each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 from the date of filing of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. till the date of attaining their age of majority. Now the revisionist shall also pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 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 24 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, 2025Sushil/-
