Jitendra Alias Jeetu vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11331 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jitendra Alias Jeetu vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:179720
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2270 of 2024   
 
   Jitendra Alias Jeetu    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Rakesh Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Case is called out in the revised list. No one appears for opposite party nos.2 and 3 despite the fact that notice has already been served upon them as per the office report dated 23rd April, 2025.

2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment and order dated 17th February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15 of 2020 (Smt. Sonam & Another Vs. Jitendra @ Jeetu), undedr Section-125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Beeta-2, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the trial court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) (total 7000+3000= Rs10,000/- per month) towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. 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 and 3 to the tune of total Rs. 10,000/- 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 job and he is only doing a private job on temporary basis and is getting Rs. 18,000/- per month as salary. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to page no.37 of the paper book, which is the application filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which it has been admitted that the revisionist by doing private job earns Rs. 18,000/- per month. He then submits that trial court, without any documentary evidence, has only on the basis of oral averments made before that since the revisionist belongs to a respectable family and works in a private institution at Noida and earns a salary of around Rs 18,000/- per month and also he has a house in Ghaziabad, which fetches a rent of around Rs 30,000/- per month as well as from other sources, he obtains sufficient money from all sources, 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.

5. 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.

6. 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. 7,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 i.e. total Rs.10,000/- per month, from the date of filing of instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that it is no doubt true that in the application filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is at page 37 of the paper book, she has stated that the revisionist works in a private company at Noida and earns a salary of approximately Rs. 18,000/- per month. However, in the said application, the opposite party no.2 has stated that apart from earning of Rs. 18,000/- per month and the opposite party no.2 owns a house in Ghaziabad which he has given on rent and from which he receives rent of about Rs. 30,000/- per month.

8. 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 nos. 2 and 3 under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be illegal, therefore, the present criminal revision liable to be dismissed.

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that it is an admitted position from the records of the present criminal revision including the impugned judgment that the revisionist is doing private job in a private institution through which he is getting salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. It is also an admitted fact that there is a house in name of father of the revisionist at Ghaziabad which is given on rent and was earlier taken by his father at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month, but now it is informed by the learned counsel for the revisionist during the course of argument that his father has died and in this way, now the revisionist must have been taking the rent of the house. Thus, the total income of the revisionist from both the sources will be Rs. 48,000/- per month, but it should also be kept in mind that his mother is suffering from cancer and the revisionist will have to spend some money on her treatment also. Now if it is assumed that the revisionist has to spend a total of Rs. 18,000/- per month on his mother's treatment, then also he would have a total income of Rs 30,000/-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. 30,000/- per month would be Rs. 7,500/- per month. As such, Rs. 7,500/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (wife and daughter respectively) 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. 7,500/- per month in total in fovour of opposite party nos.2 (wife) and opposite party no.3 (daughter) from Rs. 10,000/- per month in total and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of the instant application.

16. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 17th February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15 of 2020 (Smt. Sonam & Another Vs. Jitendra @ Jeetu), undedr Section-125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Beeta-2, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) in place of Rs. 7,000/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 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 12 monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 15th November, 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 9, 2025

Sushil/-