Avinash Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10001 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Avinash Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153704
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1173 of 2024   
 
   Avinash Singh    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Gaya Prasad Mishra, Shikher Trivedi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Mahesh Kumar   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 91
 
   
 
  
 
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Case is called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. are present.

2. Despite the fact that 11th March, 2025, when a Coordinate Bench of this Court referred the matter to the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad, Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate had been put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2, no one appears today on her behalf.

3. Heard Mr. Gaya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.

4. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 921 of 2021 (Smt. Khushbu Singh Vs. Avinash Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) from the date of filing of application i.e. 12.10.2021. It is also directed in the impugned order that any amount paid by revisionist as the interim maintenance shall be liable to be adjusted towards final order of revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that though opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist but without any reason, she is living separately from her husband i.e. the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that opposite party no.2 has degree of graduation and diploma holder in Basic Cosmetology from I.T.I. Jahnsi. She is presently running a boutique and she earns Rs. 40,000/- per month. As such, opposite party no.2 is fully capable to maintain herself without any help. It is further submitted that the monthly income of the revisionist was approximately Rs. 34,000/- per month (at the time of passing of impugned judgment) while working as Leading Fire Man in D.R.D.O. Kochi which is a Semi-Government establishment. However, since the revisionist had taken loan at the time of his marriage, the revisionist has to pay Rs. 9,827/- per month as EMI and he has also the liability of his old father, who is suffering from various diseases.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that initially the opposite party no.2 had been awarded interim maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month and the same had been paid by the revisionist for 13 month.

7. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment, which is per se illegal in the eyes of law, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other-hand learned A.G.A. has opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Principal Judge so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned A.G.A. further submits that the revisionist is working as Leading Fire Man in Semi-Government organization i.e. D.R.D.O. at Kochi and was getting salary of Rs. approximately Rs. 34,000/- per month (at the time of passing of impugned judgment), therefore, the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party no.2 at Rs. 10,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the same has also not been disputed on behalf of the revisionist. It also transpires that in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., opposite party no.2 has alleged that just after marriage, the revisionist and his family members used to torture and harass opposite party no.2 for a Card as additional demand of dowry. She also alleged that when she went Kerala along with the revisionist where he was working, where the revisionist used to beat her and he also broke her mobile phone. It is next alleged that the revisionist used to beat him and did not permit her to talk her father, mother and brother. He also used to lock her in a room when he went to the office.

10. On the basis of evidence led during the course of trial, the trial court while deciding issue nos. 4 and 5 has come to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reasons. In that regard, the trial court has recorded categorical findings of fact, which do warrant any interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

11. 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. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, it is admitted fact that the revisionist is working as Leading Fire Man in Semi-Government organization i.e. D.R.D.O. at Kochi and was getting salary of approximately Rs. 34,000/- (at the time of passing of impugned judgment) as per his affidavit filed before the trial court.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 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, the income of a husband can be fixed.

14. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court finds that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment at Rs.10,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2 is excessive and exorbitant, which is liable to be reduced as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras) i.e. 25% of the net income of the revisionist which approximately comes to Rs. 8,500/- of Rs. 34,000/- which the revisionist is getting per month.

15. Consequently, judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 921 of 2021 (Smt. Khushbu Singh Vs. Avinash Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is modified to the extent that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the said judgment is reduced to Rs.8,500/- per month from Rs. 10,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2, therefore, now the revisionist shall pay Rs.8,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 regularly from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The total amount of arrears of month maintenance allowance, if not already paid, from the date of filing of application shall be paid in 15 equal installments, the first shall commence from 15th September, 2025. It is also directed that out of Rs. 20,000/- deposited before the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad, Rs. 15,000/- shall be returned to the revisionist as the opposite party no.2 is reported to be not appeared before the Mediation Centre within a week from today.

16. 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.

17. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

18. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

September 1, 2025

Sushil/-