Dismissed¶11

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

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025CRLR/1833/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; criminal revision against Family Court Bijnor order dated 20.03.2025; Rs. 17,000/- per month maintenance to wife upheld; plea of adultery and illicit relations with Shyam Kumar rejected as unproved; neglect by husband found; revisionist R.P.F. employee, gross salary Rs. 73529/-, net pay Rs. 52552/-; amount held not excessive; revision dismissed at admission stage; Bhupendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another; CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1833 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; order date 18.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist's allegation that the wife was living in adultery and had illicit relations with one Shyam Kumar was not proved; there was no material on record to show that she was living in adultery. ¶11

Bhupendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No. 24 of 2016 fixing maintenance of Rs. 17,000/- per month for the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is illegal, erroneous or excessive and warrants interference and reduction by this Court.

¶8

Court's answer

¶11

Ratio / Principle

No money for expenses was being given by the revisionist; these facts showed neglect on his part towards the wife, which is why she was living apart from him.

¶11

Key takeaways

The maintenance of Rs. 17,000/- per month fixed by the learned trial court, considering the status of both husband and wife, cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient.ratio¶11
There was no illegality or impropriety in the Family Court order; it did not warrant interference by the High Court, and the revision, being devoid of merit, was liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Allahabad High Court, Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.) against the order dated 20.03.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No. 24 of 2016 (Renuka Singh Vs. Bhupendra Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the wife was granted maintenance of Rs. 17,000/- per month. Held: the revisionist's plea that the wife was living in adultery with one Shyam Kumar was not proved, there being no material on record; no money for expenses was being paid by the revisionist, showing neglect on his part, which was the reason the wife was living apart from him; the revisionist works in R.P.F. with gross salary of Rs. 73529/- and net pay of Rs. 52552/-; the amount of Rs. 17,000/- per month, fixed considering the status of both husband and wife, cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient; there was no illegality or impropriety in the order and it did not warrant interference. Revision dismissed at the admission stage.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116476

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1833 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Bhupendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamesh Kumar Arya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No. 24 of 2016 (Renuka Singh Vs. Bhupendra Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bijnor.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife who was wedded with revisionist on 25.04.2012 and she used to quarrel with members of family of the revisionsit. There was no any demand of dowry and harassment with her by the revisionist or other members of his family but for making harassment she filed several cases including the present case against him. He further submitted that she was living in adultery and has illicit relations with one Shyam Kumar and was seen in objectionable state on 11.07.2014 when he objected, she went to her maika and living there without any sufficient reason and filed the present case for maintenance which has been allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.03.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 17,000/- per month that is illegal and erroneous and amount is also in excess, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the revision and reduce the amount of maintenance.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

On considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 has stated in her application about harassment by the members of

¶11

the family of the revisionist and also about beating by him. The allegation as made by the revisionist about adultery against the wife has not been proved, since there is no any material on record to show that she was living in adultery and has illicit relations with one Shyam Kumar. No any money for expenses are being given by the revisionist, all these facts show the neglect on the part of the revisionist to the wife that is the reason she is living apart from him. The revisionist is working in R.P.F. and his gross salary is Rs. 73529/- and net pay Rs. 52552/-. The revisionist has stated about the personal loan regarding which he is to make payment on installments. The learned trial court has fixed the amount Rs. 17,000/- per month in favour of wife as amount of maintenance considering the status of both the husband and wife. The amount Rs. 17,000/- cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

¶12

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Anurag Singh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Similar cases

Manesh Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satendra Alias Seetu vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pushp Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rashid vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Gulfsha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another