Shahid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2614 of 2024

Shahid

.....Revisionist(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Dinesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Khalid Mahmood
Court No.- 91

¶5

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶6

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶7

Case called in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 although, name of Sri Khalid Mahmood, Advocate is shown in the list.

¶8

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, in Case No. 24 of 2022 (Smt. Farheen & Anr. Vs. Shahid), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 8000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 4000/- to the opposite party no. 3 (minor daughter) till she attains the age of majority, from the date of application.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 10.12.2016, according to Islamic rites and customs. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the opposite party no. 2 is living separate from the revisionist without any reasonable cause. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that the court below without any assessment of the income of the revisionist has awarded the maintenance allowance of Rs. 12000/- per month to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively, which is excessive and exorbitant. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that only the revisionist plies an e-rickshaw owned by him from which he is not able to earn much income. Lastly, it is submitted that trial court has granted the maintenance allowances to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 without applying its judicial mind, therefore, request has been made to set-aside the order passed by trial court.

¶11

CRLR No. 2614 of 2024

¶12

2

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that considering the current inflation, the amount of maintenance of Rs.12000/cannot be said to be excessive and beyond the capacity of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist is owner of six e-rickshaw from which he receives rent. It is next submitted that the revisionist has the pious duty to maintain his wife and minor daughter.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including order passed by learned court below dated 22.03.2024, the relationship between the revisionist and opposite party no.2, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his daughter. The trial court has framed the issue and categorically recorded its finding regarding separate living and source of income of the opposite party no.2 which cannot be interfered at this stage, because it is a findings of fact and this Court being a revisional court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law, but it appears from impugned judgement that the opposite party no.2 is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. 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. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the opposite party no. 2 has not produced any documentary evidence before the trial court to establish the income of the revisionist. The trial court has also not recorded any finding that the revisionist is the owner of six e-rickshaws. It has only been observed that the revisionist plies e-rickshaw in the city of Meerut which is very crowded city and earns easily Rs. 800/- per day after deduction electricity charge etc, he would earn Rs. 700/- per day and his monthly income of Rs. 21000/- 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.

¶15

No useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter before the trial

¶16

CRLR No. 2614 of 2024

¶17

3

¶18

court for deciding afresh. However, considering the huge pendency of cases before the trial court and in order to save its precious time, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed with modification of the impugned judgment and order.

¶19

Thus, in view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount awarded Rs. 12000/- to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 by the court below is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife but the amount of maintenance should be commensurate with the income of the husband. Hence, the maintenance awarded by the court below seems to be excessive and deserves to be reduced.

¶20

In the present case, the net income of the revisionist is Rs. 21000/therefore, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, its 25% comes to Rs. 5250/- in round figure of Rs. 5500/-. The trial court has not assessed the income of the revisionist in correct perspective, it is considered opinion of this Court that the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned court below is excessive and is liable to be reduced as per the income of the revisionist. Accordingly, it is reduced to Rs. 3500/- per month from Rs. 8000/- to the opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2000/- per month from 4000/- to the opposite party no. 3 (minor daughter) payable from the date of application.

¶21

Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 5500/- per month from Rs. 12000/- from the date of the application

¶22

The amount received, if any, by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall be subject to adjustment.

¶23

So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be paid into 10 equal monthly installments. The first installment will be paid on October, 15, 2025 and thereafter revisionist shall continue to pay the remaining installments on fifteenth day of each month. In addition to the payment of installments of arrears of maintenance, the revisionist shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2 at the rate of Rs. 3500/- and Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor daughter) granted by this Court as aforesaid.

¶24

September 15, 2025/Akbar

¶25

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahid v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid v. State of U.P. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases