Shiv Kumar Bind vs State Of Up And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 10135 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shiv Kumar Bind vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 3 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:155999
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2021 of 2024   
 
   Shiv Kumar Bind    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Up And 2 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Bal Ram Bind, Lal Vijay Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Kailash Nath   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 91
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Heard Mr. Balram Bind and Mr. Lal Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Kailash Nath, 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 6th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, in Maintenance Case No. 1425 of 2022 (Meera Bind & Another Vs. Shiv Kumar Bind) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 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. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- 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 mainly submits that on the basis of compromise so entered into the revisionist and opposite party no.2 in the presence of well-wishers of both family and some villagers, after taking all house hold articles and Stridhan, opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist along with opposite party no.3 at her parental house. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is a woman of independent nature like a free bird. After fighting with the revisionist and his family members without any reason, she used to roam around her maternal home and maternal maternal house without any reason and without any information to any members of her in-laws. When the revisionist and his family members objected not to do so, opposite party no.2 used to make an indecent display and tarnishes the reputation of the revisionist and his family in the village and society. Learned counsel for revisionist again submits that the revisionist being unemployed has no source of income to maintain his wife and daughter i.e. opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that the revisionist is a labourer and he earns Rs. 3,00/- per day, this fact is admitted by the revisionist in his cross-examination before the trial court, which has been referred to at internal page no.9 of the impugned judgment.

4. Referring to the compromise, which is said to be entered into between the parties, brought on record at page-47 of the paper book, learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that after compromise so entered into between the parties, the revisionist deliberately has engineered the instant proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in order to only grab more money from the revisionist and also harass him and his family members. He, therefore, submits that since as per the compromise, opposite party no.2 has taken all house hold articles and her Stridhan, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance.

5. 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. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- 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.

6. 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. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- 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.

7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist is an able bodied person and he is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and daughter i.e. opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

8. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since the opposite party no.2 had already taken house hold articles and her Stridhan, she is not entitled any maintenance allowance on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties is concerned, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that such compromise, which has not been verified or certified by any competent court of law, has no legal sanctity and as on today, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are legally wedded wife and real daughter. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 again submits that opposite party no.2 had been tortured and harassed by the revisionist and his family members for non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and due to said reasons, she had no other option but to live separately from her husband and his family members. Resultantly, she is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist along with her daughter at her parental house. He then submits that the revisionist has huge agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 1 lakh per year and he also works as a P.O.P. Painting from which he earns Rs. 60,000/- per month, therefore, he is fully capable to maintain his wife and daughter. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also submits that even if it is accepted that the revisionist has no source of income, in that circumstance also, the revisionist being an able bodied person 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.

9. 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. From the impugned judgment it also transpires that opposite party no.2 was being tortured and harassed by the revisionist and his family members due to non-fulfillment of the additional demand of dowry. It also appears that for settling the dispute, there was a meeting convened between both parties in the presence of some villagers and well wishers, wherein a compromise was entered into. After such compromise, when opposite party no.2 went to her matrimonial house along with opposite party no.3 she was again tortured by the revisionist and his family members. While passing the impugned judgment the trial court has has recorded categorical finding of fact that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. the revisionist with sufficient cause as she was repeatedly tortured and harassed by the revisionist and his family members. 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. To the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since the opposite party no.2 had already taken house hold articles and her Stridhan, she is not entitled any maintenance allowance on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties, this Court has finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that such compromise which has not been certified or verified by any competent court of law has no relevance in the eyes of law.

11. Qua the income of the opposite party no.2, this Court may record that there is nothing on record from which it is established that she has any source of income and is capable to maintain herself and her daughter.

12. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that it is admitted case that opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 are legally wedded wife and real daughter of the revisionist and he being the husband and father cannot shirk from his pious responsibility. Before the trial court, the revisionist has himself admitted that he earns Rs. 300/- per day working as labourer. In that circumstances, if it is considered that the revisionist being an able bodied person 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 month maintenance allowance i.e total Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rs. 3,000/-+Rs.2,000/- per month) as awarded in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively by the trial court under the impugned judgment 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.

15. Consequently, judgment and order dated 6th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, in Maintenance Case No. 1425 of 2022 (Meera Bind & Another Vs. Shiv Kumar Bind) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- to opposite party no.3 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application. 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.

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.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

September 3, 2025

Sushil/-