Smt Manju Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137925

Court No. - 84

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2839 of 2025

Revisionist :- Smt Manju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Yadav 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 material on record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 300 of 2022, (Smt. Manju Vs. Chunni Lal @ Chandan) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is husband to whom she was married in the year 2021. Due to neglect on the part of husband she was living apart in her maika from the year 2022 and moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 12.03.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of wife from the date of application. He further submits that at the time of marriage, opposite party no. 2/ the husband was working in an I.T. company at Agra and was making handsome income amounting to Rs. 40,000/- per month even though the learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of wife that is meager and less than sufficient, therefore, request to increase the amount as fixed by the learned trial court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the opposite party no. 2 has completed his B.A. in the year 2022 as stated by the revisionist, therefore, he cannot be said to be a technical man and getting Rs. 40,000/- per month by working in I.T. company. There is no any illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court in fixing the amount of maintenance in favour of wife but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 12.03.2025, it appears that admittedly marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2021 and from the year 2022 the wife is living apart from him due to his neglect. She stated him to be working in I.T. company at the time of marriage that was the year 2021 but further stated that the opposite party no. 2 has completed his B.A. in the year 2022 and his qualification is only B.A. There is no any material on record to show that by working in any I.T. company at Agra he was making income of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The person who completes B.A. in the year 2022 cannot be said to be making handsome amount as income in an I.T. company situated in Agra in the year 2021. The opposite party no. 2 has stated that he was making preparation for service but not working in any I.T. company. The opposite party no. 2 being husband and able bodied person is under legal obligation to maintain his wife. Even if he works as labourer it will be assumed that he makes earning about Rs. 12,000/- per month at the rate of Rs. 400/- per day. The learned trial court fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of wife and this amount cannot be said to be disproportionate to the assumed income of the opposite party no. 2/ the husband. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 12.03.2025 and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶11

However, if some proof regarding increased income of the husband comes in the hands of the revisionist in future, she may have an option to approach the learned trial court for enhancement of amount of maintenance.

¶12

Accordingly, this revision is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Suraj Srivastav

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Manju v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manju 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases