Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

-Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145084

Court No. - 91

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1176 of 2024

Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Shrivastava,Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Adarsh Srivastava,G.A.,Reena Pal

¶5

Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate along with Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No. 507 of 2021 (Harshika Ghatode Vs. Pawan Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as interim maintenance.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 19.10.2021 without any dowry, after some time of the marriage, conduct of opposite party no.2/ wife turned aggressive, abusive and violence with the revisionist and his family members, she used to torture his mother and committed maarpeet with her and usually lock the door from inside the house, and did not allow the revisionist and his mother to enter the house, due to which, the revisionist and his mother, compelling them to live separately in a tenanted house. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is not willing to discharge her marital obligations and has refused to consummate the marriage. Therefore, request to set aside the interim maintenance order dated 5.12.2023.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the submission made by learned counsel

¶10

CRLR No. 1176 of 2024

¶11

2

¶12

for the revisionist and submits that the revisionist came before this court against the interim maintenance and the allegations which has been levelled against the opposite party no.2 shall be considered on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties at the time of final decision.

¶13

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by court below, it appears that admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife. This Court is of the opinion that the interim maintenance has been granted on the basis of prima facie opinion made by the court and all the allegations which have been levelled by the revisionist against opposite party no.2/wife shall be subject to the evidence when both the parties will adduce their respective evidence. Without determining the veracity of such allegations made by the revisionist, this facts cannot be adjudicated at the interim stage. It is not disputed that the revisionist is employed as a Manager in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and earns a monthly income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. As per his salary slip of January 2023, which reflects the gross salary of the revisionist as Rs. 2,02,425.80/- and net salary as Rs. 1,30,198/-. The interim maintenance awarded by the court below is in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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 amount fixed by court below cannot be said to be in excess or not in proportion to the salary of the husband.

¶14

In the considered opinion of this Court, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the court below but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.

¶16

CRLR No. 1176 of 2024

¶17

3

¶18

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶19

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the court below shall conclude and decide the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either parties.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Akbar

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Archana vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anita Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Haroon vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Shivlochna vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar vs State of Up and Another