Smt. Monika Raghav @ Daisy vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1225 of 2024

Smt. Monika Raghav @ Daisy

.....Revisionist(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 89

¶5

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, and the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. Vide order dated 21.03.2024, the instant revision was connected with Criminal Revision No. 1225 of 2024 filed by opposite party no. 2. Today, both revisions are listed, and this Court proceeds to hear the matter in the absence of counsel for opposite party no. 2, who is also the counsel in the connected matter.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to modify the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Maintenance Case No. 454 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, by enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 7,000/- per month to Rs. 15,000/- per month, payable to the revisionist from the date of the application, i.e., 28.08.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court is meager, whereas opposite party no. 2 is employed in a private company where he earns Rs. 30,000/- per month. In addition, he gives private tuition to children, earning another Rs. 30,000/- per month, and is also involved in real estate business, earning approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month in total. Hence, the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court is not commensurate with the income of opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that the revisionist is dependent upon her daughter, who has attained

¶9

CRLR No. 1225 of 2024

¶10

2

¶11

majority and is likely to be married in the near future.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and contended that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the revisionist regarding the income of opposite party no. 2; only bald assertions have been made. Even assuming that opposite party no. 2 is employed in a private sports company and earns Rs. 30,000/- per month, as alleged by the revisionist in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be unjustified. The same is in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324] . The instant revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the record and the order of the learned Trial Court, it is an admitted fact that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2. Though it has been contended that opposite party no. 2 is engaged in several businesses, this fact could not be proved by the revisionist. A person employed in a private job cannot ordinarily engage in multiple other occupations. Hence, this Court is constrained to accept that opposite party no. 2 is employed in a private sports company and earns Rs. 30,000/- per month, as alleged by the revisionist herself in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324], Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (Nee Nandy) [AIR 2017 SC 2383], and Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [(1970) 3 SCC 129] , it has been held that maintenance may be granted up to 25% of the husband’s net income. Accordingly, 25% of Rs. 30,000/- comes to Rs. 7,500/- per month, which is close to the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court. Being a revisional court, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the Trial Court unless such findings are perverse or contrary to law and facts. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference by this Court. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist that she has the liability of her daughter, who has attained majority and is likely to be married soon, is concerned, the revisionist shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court if there is any change in income or

¶14

CRLR No. 1225 of 2024

¶15

3

¶16

circumstances.

¶17

Hence, the instant revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

As learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is wholly dependent upon her daughter, it is directed that in case the revisionist files any application for execution of the maintenance order, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶19

November 3, 2025

¶20

pks

¶21

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Monika Raghav @ Daisy v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Monika Raghav @ Daisy 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satya Pal Sharma vs State of Up and Another

Ankit vs State of U.P. and Another

Masaruf Ali vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Punwasi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Arjumand Ara vs State of U.P and Another

Avinash Singh vs State of U.P. and Another