Vishwakarma Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 268 of 2018 (Smt. Ranjana Sharma vs. Vishvakarma Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Shahpur District Gorakhpur whereby the revisionist has directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 4500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of the application.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 18.02.2018 according Hindu rites and ritual. It is further submitted that the revisionist has no source of income and earlier he gone to abroad for doing job of plumber but now he is in India and is unemployed and he has also other liability of his mother and sister. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that the opposite party no. 2/ wife is peevish in nature and living separate from the revisionist without any reasonable excuse. Thereafter, she filed an application on 26.06.2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that the court below without any assessment of the income of the revisionist has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 4500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2, is too excessive. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is working as a plumber and he also maintain himself along with his mother and sister. All these factors were not taken into consideration by learned court below while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore,

¶14

CRLR No. 2037 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

request to set-aside the order passed by learned court below and allow the revision and reduce the amount.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist who is being tortured by the family members of the revisionist on account of non fulfilment for demand of additional dowry i.e. a swift car. It is also submitted that the revisionist is a skilled labour and doing work of plumber. Considering the current inflation, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 4500/cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity and this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the order passed by learned court below dated 08.02.2024, this Court may record that admittedly the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that opposite party no.2 is living separately due to negligence on the part of the revisionist. It is also admitted by the revisionist that while filing his reply before the trial court in para no.21 that the revisionist is metric pass and had gone to abroad for doing work but now he is in India at his native place. Meaning thereby he is a skilled labour and earns Rs. 500/- per day which would comes to Rs. 15000/- per month. However it is pious duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife and children, but there should be a balance between the income of the husband and the amount of maintenance. 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.

¶19

Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (supra) , it is considered opinion of this Court that the amount of maintenance has been fixed by the learned court below is too excessive as the per the income of the revisionist, hence it is reduced to Rs. 3750/- per month in place of Rs. 4500/- to the opposite party no.2, payable from the

¶20

CRLR No. 2037 of 2024

¶21

3

¶22

date of filing of the application.

¶23

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed and the impugned order dated is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 3750/- per month from the date of the application, in place of Rs. 4500/-.

¶24

The amount received, if any, by the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment.

¶25

However, Since the revisionist is a labour and the remaining amount of arrears from the date of filing of application is so excessive in one stroke to be paid by the revisionist to opposite party no.2, it is provided that the revisionist shall pay the arrears of maintenance allowance to the opposite party no.2 in 20 equal installments. The first installment shall commence from October, 2025. The revisionist shall also pay the amount of monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3750/- to opposite party no.2 regularly.

¶26

September 9, 2025 ( Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶27

C. MANI

¶28

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishwakarma Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwakarma Sharma 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