Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:170198
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2726 of 2024
Shailendra Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Jitendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Mahendra Kumar Sharma
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Mr. Mahendra Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 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 22nd February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad in Maintenance Case No. 462/12 of 2019 (Smt. Shalu Vs. Shailendra Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife)towards maintenance allowance on 7th day of each calendar from the date of filing of the instant application
3. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is no doubt true that before Covid-19, the revisionist was working in a private company and getting a salary of Rs. 11,500/- per month but after Covid-19, his said job was left. Now, the revisionist being a labourer, works as a porter in a vegetable market and he somehow earns money for his livelihood. He, therefore, submits that under such circumstances, the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party no. 2 to the tune of total Rs. 6,000/- per month is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist.
4. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that considering the above facts and circumstances, the amount of maintenance allowance by the trial court under the impugned judgment may be reduced to some extent and if the same is reduced as to be quantified by this Court, revisionist shall pay the same regularly without any fault.
5. Except the above contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has not stated anything else.
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. 6,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. They, however, could not dispute that the revisionist was earlier working in a private company but after Covid-19, he is doing work of labourer only.
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 no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, whereas opposite party no.3 is his real son and as per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for maintaining his legally wedded wife and real son.
8. Since learned counsel for the revisionist has not stated anything about the separate living of opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist, this Court has nothing to record or discuss anything about it.
9. It is undisputed fact also that earlier the revisionist was working in a private company before Covid-19 and earning Rs. 11,500/- per month and after Covid-19 his job was left and at present he being labourer works as a porter in a vegetable market, as is evident from the impugned judgment.
10. It is admitted position that the revisionist has not claimed that he is not physically deformed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.
11. 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.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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.
13. Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the court below i.e. Rs. 6,000/- is not commensurate as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. 25% of the total monthly amount i.e. Rs. 18,000 as quantified by this Court herein-above would be Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the same 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 filing of the instant application.
14. Consequently, judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad in Maintenance Case No. 462/12 of 2019 (Smt. Shalu Vs. Shailendra Singh), 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.2 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. Since the revisionist is a labourer and has no other source of income, it would be too harsh for him to pay the same in one stroke. Therefore, this Court directs the revisionist to pay the total arrears of maintenance allowance as directed above in 10 equal monthly installments. The first monthly installment shall commence from 5th October, 2025.
15. 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.
16. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 22, 2025
Sushil/-
