Jitendra vs State Of Up And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 10129 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jitendra vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 3 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:155738
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1776 of 2024   
 
   Jitendra    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Up And 2 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Sangeeta Shukla, Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Yogesh Mishra   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 91
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Vishvaji Tiwari, 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. questioning the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 241 of 2020 (Smt. Usha & Another Vs. Jitendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Dholana, District-Kasganj, whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no.3 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is working as a clerk/'Munshi' with an Advocate of Civil Court and he hardly earns Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that after some time of marriage, there was a change in the behavior of opposite party no. 2. Often she started using abusive and vulgar language with the revisionist and his family members and also started to harass them mentally and behaving in a rude manner. It is then submitted that opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial house along with her son without any reason. The revisionist and his family members made various efforts to take her back to her matrimonial home along with her son but all efforts went in vein. At present the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist along with her son without any reason. In order to grab money and harass the revisionist and his family members, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the impugned judgment has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submits that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment at Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 i.e total Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing of the application is too excessive and exorbitant and also not in commensurate with the income of the revisionist. As such the judgment impugned cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have 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. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 i.e total Rs. 5000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the application, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the opposite party no.2 had been tortured by the revisionist and his family members for non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. It is further stated that at the time of delivery of son (opposite party no.3 herein) of opposite party no.2 and the revisionist, not even a single penny was given by the revisionist to opposite party no.2 which had been incurred in purchase of medicines and medical treatment. It is next submitted that the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party no.3 is his real son. Therefore, it is under legal obligation upon the revisionist to maintain his wife and son (opposite party nos. 2 and 3 herein respectively). He then submits that prior to the marriage of revisionist, he was working in a private factory and earned a handsome money and only for evading to pay maintenance allowance, he left his job. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also submits that the revisionist is an able bodied person and on account of his having no source of income, he cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and real son.Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 lastly submits that 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, which is already on lower side. He, therefore, submits that since there is no illegality in the judgment impugned, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. 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 nos. 2 and 3 are legally wedded wife and real son of the revisionist respectively. While passing the impugned judgment the trial court has has specifically recorded that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. the revisionist with sufficient cause as she was tortured and harassed by the revisionist and his family members.

8. At page-26 of the paper book, it has been recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the revisionist has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not want to take opposite party no.2 back along with him to her matrimonial house. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and son.

9. On the aforesaid two issues regarding separate living of the revisionist and the relation between the revisionist and opposite party nos. 2 and 3, the trial court has recorded categorical finding of facts. 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 revisionist is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that though there is no evidence on record i.e. documentary as well as oral evidence but it is cropped from the record as well as from the impugned judgment that he is an able bodied person. He is not physically deformed. Before the trial court, the revisionist claims himself that he is doing a clerical job with an Advocate but he has not disclosed as to in which district court and as to under whose advocate he is doing such clerical job. Thus, the averment made by the revisionist before this Court as well as before the trial court regarding his employment does not inspire confidence. However, since the revisionist is an able bodied person, and at present scenario, 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 25% of the net income of the revisionist i.e. Rs. 18,000/- would be Rs. 4,500/-. Thus, 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, the total maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment i.e (Rs. 4,000/-+ Rs.1,000/- per month, total Rs. 5,000/- per month) is reduced to Rs. 4,500 from Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife) and opposite party no.3 (son) and the same shall be payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

13. Consequently, judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 241 of 2020 (Smt. Usha & Another Vs. Jitendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Dholana, District-Kasganj, is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 3,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no.3 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Looking into the fact that the revisionist is labourer, therefore, it would be too harsh for him to pay entire arrears of the maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in one stroke. Therefore, this Court directs the revisionist to pay the entire arrears of monthly maintenance allowance to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in 15 equal monthly installments and the first shall commence from 15 day of September, 2025.

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 3, 2025

Sushil/-