Allahabad High Court
Smt Jyoti Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176937
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 981 of 2024
Smt Jyoti Yadav And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Jaysingh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Piyush Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material available on record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionists for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded vide judgment and order dated 11th October, 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 143 of 2019 (Smt. Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. Rahul Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Todi Fatehpur, District - Jhansi, whereby the trial court while ex-parte allowing the instant application has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to revisionist no.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the revisionist no.2, i.e. total Rs.4,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of order.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists stated that the amount awarded by the trial court is meagre keeping in view the inflation rate and cost of living. He also stated that the minor child i.e. revisionist no.2 has started his education and now a handsome amount is to be incurred on him but this fact was not considered by the trial court while opposite party no.2 has had tractor compressor, he helps in stone crushing and from it he earns a handsome amount, however, he admitted that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the income of the opposite party no.2.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 stated that the opposite party no.2 is a labour and the opposite party no.2 is not the owner of crushing machine/tractor compressor rather it was owned by his father and he only works there on daily wages and earns Rs.300-350/- per day. Keeping in view the daily wages income of the opposite party no.2 the amount awarded by the trial court is correct and the same cannot be said to be meagre. He also admitted that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist no.2 is his son and the amount granted by the trial court is in proportion to the income of the opposite party no.2.
5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it is admitted case that the revisionist no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist no.2 is his son and at the time of filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the revisionist no.2-Harsh Yadav was aged about four and half years, meaning thereby now he is at the age when he has to start going school. On perusal of record, it transpires that the revisionist no.1 herself admitted in her examination-in-chief that the opposite party no.2 is crushing stone and he is doing the work of labour but it was also mentioned in the affidavit of the revisionist no.1 that the opposite party no.2 is crushing stones with the help of tractor compressor, which was owned by her father-in-law. Keeping in view the nature of work done by the opposite party no.2, it can be assumed that he is a skilled labour and certainly he would earn Rs.800/- per day, in this way, he would earn Rs.24,000/- per month. In the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Apex Court observed that, if the husband is the able bodied person, he is under obligation to maintain his wife and children, which comes to Rs.6,000/- per month, thus, the amount of maintenance allowance of Rs.4,000/- granted by the trial court deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, the maintenance amount of Rs.4000/- is enhanced to Rs.6,000/-, out of which Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.3000/- to the revisionist no.2-Harsh Yadav, from the date of the order.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order of the trial court is modified to the extent as indicated above.
7. In case, the opposite party no.2 has paid any amount towards the maintenance that shall be adjusted and if any arrears are yet to be paid by the opposite party no. 2 that shall be paid in ten equal instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on November 15th, 2025. The rest nine instalments will be paid on fifteenth of each calendar month. 8. With the above observations/directions, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
October 7, 2025
Prajapati RK
