Allahabad High Court
Hari Om vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154877
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4222 of 2024
Hari Om
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Ram Shiromani Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
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 notice issued to opposite party no.2 has been served as per the office report dated 7th July, 2025, no one appears on her behalf.
3. Heard Mr. Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No. 1481 of 2022 (Smt. Pista Vs. Hariom), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment i.e. 18th May, 2024.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a labourer only. Neither he has other source of income nor he has any land on his name. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist at her parental house without any reason. It is then submitted that opposite party no.2 does not wish to live with the revisionist as she has been in falling love with her sister's husband i.e. 'Jija'. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submits that the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment at Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of passing of the said judgment is too excessive and exorbitant and also no in commensurate with the income of the revisionist. As such the judgment impugned cannot be legally sustained and 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. 3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of application and Rs. 6,000/- from the date of passing of the impugned judgment towards maintenance allowance, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that the revisionist earns Rs. 40,000/- per month, he also earns money from his 10 bighas of agricultural land and also by selling milk of buffalo. Keeping in mind the present inflation, the amount of monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive. He, therefore, submits that since there is no illegality in the judgment impugned, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. 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. Qua the income of the opposite party, 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 source of income in order to maintain herself. While deciding issue no.3, the trial court under the impugned judgment has recorded categorical finding that opposite party no.2 has no source of income.
9. On perusal of the aforesaid findings returned by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the trial court has recorded categorical finding of facts on the above issues. 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.
10. So far as the monthly income of the opposite party no.2 is concerned, the revisionist claims himself before the trial court that he is a labourer. Thus, in that circumstance if it is considered that he is a labourer, then he would at least earn Rs. 600/- per day, meaning thereby that his total monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- per month.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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.
12. 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 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 , hence, it is reduced to Rs. 4,500 from Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and the same shall be payable from the date of passing of the impugned judgment
13. Consequently, judgment and order dated 18th May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No. 1481 of 2022 (Smt. Pista Vs. Hariom), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to opposite party no.1 towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.
14. 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.
15. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 2, 2025
Sushil/-
