Allahabad High Court
Sunita Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:168060
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2222 of 2024
Sunita Devi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Rishi Kant Rai, Vinay Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the state as well as perused the record.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case No. 400 of 2021 (Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. Kuldeep Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., insofar as it awards the monthly maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist only. By means of the present criminal revisionist, the revisionist has prayed for enhancement of the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court in favour of the revisionist to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month under the impugned judgment is too meagre and is on the lower side and also the same is insufficient to meet out the revisionist's day to day expenses like food, medical expenses etc. as well as the education expenses of her major daughter and son, who are undertaking higher education.
4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that considering the present inflation and above circumstances, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified while enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of the revisionist.
5. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist, is realistic, reasonable and justifiable. The said judgment is not liable to be modified or set aside considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submits that in compliance of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2nd May, 2024 passed in the present criminal revision, the opposite party no.2 has filed his affidavit along with the supplementary affidavit filed in the registry of this Court, in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. In the said affidavit, the opposite party no.2 has shown that he retired from his service as a government employee and he is now receiving Rs. 36,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 again submits that it is no doubt true that revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 and it is under legal obligation upon him to maintain his wife i.e. revisionist. He further submits that apart from the liability of the revisionist upon the opposite party no.2, he has also liability of his three sons, who were born out from his first marriage with Smt. Kamla Devi, who already died.
8. On the above premise, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
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 passed by the trial court, it is an admitted position from the records that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and from their wedlock one daughter and son were born but at present they have attained the age of majority and also from the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the present criminal revision, it is crystal clear that neither the daughter nor the son of the revisionist were made party either in the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or in the present criminal revision. Therefore, this Court, which sits in revisional jurisdiction cannot express any opinion for granting monthly maintenance allowance in their favour at this stage.
10. It is also admitted that from the first wife of the opposite party no.2, three children were born and their responsibilities are also upon his shoulders as well as the opposite party no.2 has since retired and is getting Rs. 36,000/- per month as pension.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajnesh (Supra) 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.
12. Keeping in view of the income of opposite party no.2 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 total monthly income of opposite party no.2 i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per month which he is getting as pension, would be approximately Rs. 9,000/- and in that circumstance, the amount of maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist is realistic, reasonable and justifiable. The same is not required to be enhanced considering the facts as noted above.
13. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the trial court awarding Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist towards monthly maintenance allowance cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in any manner. The same stands affirmed.
14. The present criminal revision devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 18, 2025
Sushil/-
