Ajay Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145568

Court No. - 91

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2357 of 2024

Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shivam Shukla,Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.

¶6

Case is called out in the revised list.

¶7

As per office report dated 09.07.2024, notices have been served personally upon opposite party nos.2 to 5 but no one is present even in the revised call.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for State.

¶9

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2024, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Family Court No. 03, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 508 of 2020 (Smt. Indrabalal and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar Pathak), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the court below has granted Rs. 1000/- each (opposite party nos. 3 & 4) per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Rs. 2000/- each (opposite party no. 3 & 4) per month from the date of judgment as maintenance allowance.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 16.05.2005, the marriage has been solemnized between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and thereafter out of their wedlock one female and one male child were borne, namely, Km. Shreya and Raj Rai respectively. Due to some differences between the parties, the opposite party no.2 left the house of his husband along-with her two minor children and living separately. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein, the trial court has fixed the maintenance amount of Rs. 1000/- each (opposite party nos. 3 & 4) per month from the date of filing of the application and and Rs. 2000/- each (opposite party no. 3 & 4) per month from the date of judgment as maintenance allowance.

¶11

CRLR No. 2357 of 2024

¶12

2

¶13

Counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is an unemployed person and he has no source of income. Revisionist is doing farming but the land is situated in the name of his father, therefore, is unable to maintain even himself and he is not in a position to pay any maintenance amount passed by the court below. Counsel for the revisionist further submits that the opposite party no.2 (wife) is staff nurse and earning Rs.35,000/- per month.

¶14

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the arguments and submits that the revisionist has tortured to his wife in connection with demand of dowry and he demanded one motorcycle and one lacs rupees as an additional dowry, opposite party no.2 appraised this fact to his father. Her father tried to make her understand that after some time the things will become better, but the revisionist did not change his behavior and continued to tortured her and on 23.08.2010, she was ousted from her matrimonial house along-with two minor children. Learned AGA further submits that the revisionist is an able bodied person and he is in a position to pay the maintenance amount but he shirk from his liability to maintain her wife and children, moreover the court below has awarded very meagre amount, hence no interference is required by this Court.

¶15

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA and perused the material available on record as well as judgement passed by the court below, it appears that it is admitted fact that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and out of their wedlock two children were borne, namely, Km. Shreya and Raj Rai. It also appears from the record that the opposite party no.2 is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. No wedded women like to live separately without any reason unless she harassed and compelled, specially when she is mother of two minor children.

¶16

Though the counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist is an unemployed and have no source of income, even if the revisionist is considered as labourer, he would earn at least Rs.500/- per day, this way he earns Rs.15,000/- per month. In the case of Rajnesh versus Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has been observed that up to the 25% of the net income of the husband can be fixed for the maintenance of his wife and children. Keeping in view, the income of Rs.15,000/- per month of the

¶17

CRLR No. 2357 of 2024

¶18

3

¶19

revisionist, it comes 25 % as Rs.3750/- per month as maintenance in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh versus Neha (supra) which is almost Rs.4,000/- per months, hence the total amount of maintenance are as Rs.4,000/- per month cannot said to be excessive. Admittedly, both the children are minor and they unable to maintain themselves, therefore, it is pious duty of father to maintain his children. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances, the income of the husband, the amount awarded by the court below is just and proper and no revisional interference is required, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

So far as the amount of arrears is concerned, learned counsel for the revisionist is requested that since the revisionist is a labourer, the amount of arrears be divided into easy installments so that it may be easy to pay.

¶21

Keeping in mind, the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist, the amount of arrears shall be paid by the revisionist in twenty equal installments. Out of which first installment will fall in the month of October, 2025 and rest of the 19 installments shall be paid on each of the 15^th of every month.

¶22

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is disposed of.

¶23

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 I.A.Siddiqui

¶25

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Pawan Kumar 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

Sadiq Hasan Siddiqui vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manvendra Shreedhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others