Nand Kishore vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11449 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nand Kishore vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 13 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181743
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2879 of 2024   
 
   Nand Kishore    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. & 2 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Vikrant Gupta   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Awaneesha Kumar, G.A., Narendra Singh, Yashavant Kumar   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.    

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 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. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 184 of 2019 (Reg. No. 184 of 2019 (Smt. Bhoori & Another Vs. Nand Kishore), under Section 127 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Shahbad, District-Rampur whereby the trial court while partly allowing the instant application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., has enhanced the monthly maintenance allowance awarded in favour opposite party no.2 from Rs. 800/- per month to Rs. 3000/- and in favour of opposite party no.3 from Rs. 800/- per month to Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the the revisionist submits that earlier on 7th February, 2013, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, which has been registered as Case No. 71 of 2013 (Smt. Bhoori & Another Vs. Nand Kishore) before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur, wherein after completion of summary proceedings, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 26th August, 2014, after allowing the application of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 800/- per month each to opposite party no.2 (wife) and opposite party no.3 (daughter). It is pertinent to mention here that opposite party no.3 has been awarded said maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 till the date of attaining the age of her majority. On 8th April, 2019 the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have filed the instant application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the aforesaid monthly maintenance allowance, in which the impugned order has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that though the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have filed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the monthly maintenance allowance, but no documentary evidence has been adduced on their behalf for enhancement of the same qua the changed circumstances like increase of salary/income of the revisionist etc., which was necessary as per the provision itself. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the Single Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Jyoti @ Gayatri Vs. Rohit Sharma @ Santosh Sharma passed in Criminal Revision. P. 56 of 2018 decided on 10th June, 2022 specifically paragraph nos. 22 and 28 of the judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submits that since the age of opposite party no.3 has been mentioned as "15 years" in the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., which has been filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on 8th April, 2019, in this way, when the impugned order has been passed by the trial court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. i.e. on 29th March, 2024, opposite party no.3 must have attained the age of majority i.e. about 20 years of age. In that circumstance, the trial court while deciding application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. under the impugned order should not have enhanced monthly maintenance allowance earlier awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is per se incorrect. illegal on the ground that opposite party no.3 has attained the age of majority and as per the judgment passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she is not entitled to get any monthly maintenance allowance.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that the revisionist works as a labourer under the MANREGA scheme launched by the Central Government of India through which he somehow earns some for his livelihood and therefore, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as enhanced by the trial court in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively is too excessive, exorbitant and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist, which clearly hits the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since the trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the amount of maintenance enhanced by the trial court under the impugned order in the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. As such the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

9. Besides the above, to the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist qua the changed of circumstances being not mentioned in the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is the same is mandatory, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on 7th February, 2013 in which the judgment awarding maintenance allowance in their favour has been passed on 26th August, 2014, whereas the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on 8th April, 2019 and the impugned order has been passed by the trial court on 29th March, 2024 enhancing the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as earlier awarded, meaning thereby about 10 years have elapsed from the date of passing of judgment dated 26th August, 2014 in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and till the date of passing of the impugned order dated 29th March, 2024. Therefore, now no one can have any doubt that in the last ten years the prices of everything have increased tenfold like household expenses, medical treatment expenses, water and electricity bills etc. Similarly, the per day income or the monthly income of any employees, officers, officials, technicians, engineers, doctors, skill labourers, non-skill labourers etc. is also increased ten times in the same ratios as they were earlier obtained.

10. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that impugned order enhancing the amount of monthly maintenance allowance, as earlier awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in any manner, therefore, the present criminal revision liable to be dismissed.

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

13. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. So far as the changed of circumstances is concerned, this Court may record that the circumstances which have been changed in the life of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and also the circumstances which have changed in the monthly income of the revisionist have specifically been mentioned. This Court finds substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that the judgment passed by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the year 2014 and the impugned order of enhancement has been passed in the year 2024, as such, nearly ten years have elapsed since then and in these ten years rate of inflation, rate of house hold things, cost of living and the income of any person are much more increased in the same ratio in the year 2024 as were in the year 2014. The facts of the present case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case of Jyoti @ Gayatri which has heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

15. Qua the monthly income of the revisionist, this Court may record that it is not doubt true there is no documentary evidence adduced before the trial court as to what is the exact income of the revisionist. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted before this Court that the revisionist is labourer under the MANREGA scheme.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) 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.

17. In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, the revisionist, who is an able bodied person and a labourer would have earned Rs. 600/- per day, meaning thereby his monthly income would be Rs. 18,000/- per month.

18. 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.

19. 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 which has been enhanced by the trial court under the impugned order in the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively (total Rs. 4,000/- per month) is already in lower side 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 total Rs. 4,500/- per month. In such circumstances, the total amount enhanced by the trial court to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.

20. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since at the time of passing of impugned order i.e. 29th March, 2024 opposite party no.3 has already attained the age of majority, she is not entitled to get any monthly maintenance allowance from the revisionist is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revisionist shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application before the trial court as he may be so advised for the aforesaid purpose.

21. Consequently, since the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

22. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

October 13, 2025

Sushil/-