Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189470
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 990 of 2024
Pankaj Yadav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Ravi Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Anil Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1.Heard Sri Ravi Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for opposite parties nos. 2 and 3, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside or quash the judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case No. 203 of 2018 (Garima vs. Pankaj), whereby the learned Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, opposite party no. 3, from the date of filing of the application.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amount awarded by the Trial Court is excessive and exorbitant; however, during the course of arguments, he admitted that the revisionist holds degrees of B.Com and Chartered Accountancy, and prayed for setting aside the order dated 28.11.2023. Except for this, no other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposed the revision and submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has been deserted by her husband and is compelled to maintain herself and her minor child. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her marriage was solemnized on 28.11.2023 with the revisionist. The revisionist, being a qualified Chartered Accountant and is quite hale and hearty, cannot claim that the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court is excessive.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned A.G.A., it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party no. 3 is their minor son. The Trial Court, while deciding the issue of separate living, has recorded detailed reasoning. It is also an admitted fact that the revisionist has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is pending consideration before this Court. A perusal of page 12, paragraph 13 of the judgment shows that the Trial Court concluded that the revisionist holds degrees of B.Com and C.A., and that opposite party no. 2 is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. The findings of the Trial Court are based on evidence recorded by the Trial Court. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also substitute its own finding in place of findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue in question unless the finding is completely perverse and against the facts and law.
6. The revisionist/husband is an able-bodied person and, therefore, cannot shirk his pious obligation to maintain his wife and child. The maintenance awarded by the Trial Court at Rs. 13,000/- per month in total cannot be said to be excessive, keeping in view the qualifications and earning capacity of the revisionist as a Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.
8. In case the revisionist has already paid any amount towards maintenance, the same shall be adjusted. If any arrears of maintenance remain unpaid, the revisionist shall pay the same in ten equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15th November, 2025, and the remaining nine instalments shall be paid on or before the 15th day of each succeeding month.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
October 29, 2025
pks
