Manoj Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54398

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1721 of 2025

Revisionist :- Manoj Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shailendra Kumar Awasthi,Sumit Mubai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 alongwith learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present criminal revisionist has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, Baghpat passed in Case No.325 of 2019 (maintenance 327/2019) upon the application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the respondent no.2 & 3, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- for respondent no.2 and Rs.2000/- for respondent no.3 from date of application and Rs.5000/- per month to each respondent no.2 & 3 (total Rs.10,000/-) per month from the date of order.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no.2 is wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is minor son of the revisionist. The marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2012 and son was born in the year 2013. Later on, dispute arose between husband and wife and from the year 2017 she is living separately from the husband in her bua's house. Further submitted that without any reasonable excuse she is living separately from him alongwith his minor child. She is Ph.D. degree holder and works as a teacher and she is able to maintain herself alongwith minor son. The revisionist is also well qualified person but at present he is not working as a teacher anywhere. There is no any income to support himself and to give money to the wife and the child for maintenance as awarded by the learned trial court. Prior to the litigation he was teaching and making income and always maintained the wife. He further submits that the amount of maintenance of Rs.5000/- to wife and Rs.5000/- to minor son are beyond the capacity of the revisionist but learned trial court did not consider the material on record and the capacity of the revisionist to make payment of amount of maintenance and the capacity of wife to be able to maintain herself but passed the order in question which cannot be said to be lawful and appropriate but being illegal is liable to be set aside and revision is to be allowed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the aforesaid submissions and contended that in this case the wife is Ph.D. degree holder likewise the husband is also well qualified person. She is living separately from the husband on account of his misbehaviour. The revisionist filed a petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce as Case No.457 of 2018 in which he has admitted that he entered into marriage and also took divorce from the opposite party no.2 it shows that the revisionist was never eager to keep his wife with him. He also admitted the fact that he did not know about the education of his child. He further contends that the revisionist is able bodied well qualified person and Ph.D. degree holder. He is part time teacher and also possesses 5 bighas agricultural land. He is member in several colleges and also Joint Secretary in Jai Shree College and Education Technology, Bulanshahar. It shows that the revisionist makes handsome income, therefore, the amount of Rs.5000/- to the wife and Rs.5000/- to the child cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient but it is meagre and it must be increased to the status of the wife and child.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record, the order passed by learned trial court, the standard of education of both the parties, the minor child and the earning capacity of of the revisionist, it can be said that the amount awarded by learned trial court as maintenance Rs.3000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the child form the date of application to the date of order and Rs.5000/- per month to the wife and further Rs.5000/- to the child from the date of application is not equivalent to the status of the husband and wife but it is insufficient. It is in the domain of the opposite party no2 to get it enhanced by adopting available remedy before the competent court, therefore, this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, this revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases