Allahabad High Court
Hari Prakash Agrahari vs Menka Agrahari on 18 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:169210
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1384 of 2024
Hari Prakash Agrahari
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Menka Agrahari
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
Ref: Order on delay Condonation Application no.1 of 2024.
1. Heard.
2. The present delay condonation application, no objection has been raised by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.
3. Cause shown for delay in filing the revision is sufficient and the delay is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed.
4. Office to allot a regular number to this revision.
Order on Revision.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-2nd, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 202 of 2019 (Menka Agrahari Vs. Hari Prakash Agrahari), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 15000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 (wife) and Rs. 8000/- per month each to the opposite party nos.2 & 3 (minor children) from the date of filing of application till the date of the impugned order and it is also directed to the revisionist to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 (wife) and Rs. 13000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (minor son) and Rs. 15000/- to opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) attaining the age of majority i.e. in total Rs. 48000/- from the date of the impugned order.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.1 was solemnized on 01.05.2007 according Hindu rites and ritual and out of their wedlock two children, Gaurang Hari and Samridhi Hari was born. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 started living separately along with their children without any plausible reason. It is further submitted that opposite party no.1 is working as a teacher who earns Rs. 25000/- per month. It is also submitted that the revisionist bears the school fees and other expenses of his children. All these facts were not considered by the trial court while deciding the application filed U/s 125 Cr.P.C. by opposite party no.1 and the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is too excessive and exorbitant and not 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 learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the only the school fees of the children was paid by the revisionist but except the same he could not pay any single penny to his wife and children. It is also contended that the opposite party no.2 is being tortured and for the same, the FIR's was lodged against the revisionist twice that is why she is living separately along with her minor children. It is also submitted that the revisionist is working as SDO in BSNL and earns a handsome amount of salary but he neither produced any salary slip before the trial court nor before this Court. It is also submitted that being a class-I employee, the salary of the revisionist must have approximately Rs. 1,25,000/-. Hence it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is too excessive and beyond the capacity of the revisionist and this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
6. 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 order, it transpires that it is admitted fact that opposite party no.1 is legally wedded wife and opposite party nos.2 & 3 are minor children of the revisionist. However it is pious duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife and children, but there should be a balance between the income and responsibility of the husband. So far as the separate living of opposite party no.1 from the revisionist is concerned, the learned trial court has categorically recorded its findings at para-17 of the impugned judgment that admittedly, the two FIR's was lodged against the revisionist with the allegations of committing maar-peet. Hence the opposite party no.1 along with her children living separately due to negligence on the part of the revisionist.
7. 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. While deciding the issue no.3 the learned trial court reached the conclusion that opposite party no.1- Menka Agrahari is unable to maintain herself. However, it was contended by the counsel for the revisionist that he is a school teacher but learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 stated that she working as a teacher but due to Covid, she left her job and at present she is unemployed. 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.
8. Now the only point is rest before this court that the amount of maintenance should be just and reasonable in favour of opposite party nos. 1 to 3.
9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial court while deciding the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no.1, considered the salary of the revisionist as Rs. 1,00,000/-. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the total income of the husband which comes to Rs. 25000/-. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the dependent children who studying in higher level, this fact should also be should be taken care while deciding the maintenance application. Since the opposite party no.2 is studying in class XI in CBSE board, it is the common question of prudence the school fees including the tuition fees should be at least Rs. 6000/- per month would be incurred and also in favour of opposite party no.3 the amount of the same should be at least Rs. 4000/- per month.
10. Keeping in view of the entire facts and circumstance of the case and also keeping in view of the class in which the children are studying the amount of maintenance comes to Rs. 35000/- in total while the amount awarded by the trial court Rs. 48000/- is too excessive which almost 50% of the income of the husband and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial court deserves to be modified.
11. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 35000/- per month from the date of the impugned order, in place of Rs. 48000/- to the extent that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 25,000/- per month to opposite party no.1, Rs. 6000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4000/- per month to opposite party no.3 from the date of the impugned order.
12. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance, if any, is concerned, it may be divided into 10 equal monthly installments. The first installment will fall on October, 15, 2025 and thereafter revisionist will continue to pay other eleven installments in fifteen day of each month. In addition to the payment of installments of arrears of maintenance allowance, the revisionist shall also pay the monthly maintenance allowance to opposite party nos.1 to 3 regularly as fixed by this Court herein above.
13. However, it is clarified that the amount of maintenance shall be calculated on the basis of the amount fixed by the trial court, if any maintenance amount has already been given, shall be subject to adjustment.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 18, 2025
C. MANI
