Dismissed¶11

Ramendra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2025CRLR/466/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance quantum revision dismissed; Family Court Kannauj award upheld (Rs. 8,000/- per month to wife, opposite party no. 2; Rs. 3,000/- per month to daughter Priti until majority); court found revision an abuse of process and a ploy to delay payment; precedents relied on: AIR 1997 SC 3397 (Kaur Sehgal — reasonable comfort standard, capacity of husband) and AIR 2014 SC 2875 (Bhuwan Mohan Singh — sustenance beyond bare subsistence); judge: Prashant Kumar, J.; keywords: maintenance, sustenance, criminal revision, financial capacity, proper inquiry, exorbitant award, delaying tactic.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court cited in paras 7 and 8, the court held that the filing of this revision is an abuse of the process of law and that there is no merit in it.

Ramendra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the monthly maintenance fixed by the Family Court (Rs. 8,000/- to the wife and Rs. 3,000/- to the daughter) is exorbitant and disproportionate to the revisionist's actual income and financial capacity. +2 more

¶3

Court's answer

On finding no merit, the court dismissed the revision, leaving undisturbed the Family Court's award of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the daughter until majority.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

¶9

Key takeaways

The court recorded its view that the proceedings appear to have been initiated with the sole intention of not paying the maintenance amount or of delaying its payment to the wife.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 466 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 79; Prashant Kumar, J.; decided 18.7.2025) — DISMISSED. The revisionist (husband) challenged the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj's order dated 28-11-2024 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which had partly allowed the maintenance application: Rs. 8,000/- per month to the wife (opposite party no. 2) and Rs. 3,000/- per month to daughter Priti until majority (rejected for opposite party nos. 3 and 4). Counsel contended the award was exorbitant and disproportionate to the revisionist's actual income and financial capacity, burdened as he was with family responsibilities, medical expenses and other liabilities, and that no proper inquiry into his genuine economic condition and living standard had been made. Relying on Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (AIR 1997 SC 3397) — maintenance to be fixed affording the wife reasonable comfort consistent with her status, having regard to the husband's capacity, neither excessive nor extortionate — and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (AIR 2014 SC 2875) — sustenance meaning a life similar to that in the matrimonial home — the court found the revision an abuse of the process of law, apparently initiated with the sole intention of not paying or delaying the maintenance, and dismissed it.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117467

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 466 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Ramendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the impugned order dated 28-11-2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of the application. The maintenance application had been partly allowed by the court below in respect of opposite party nos. 2 and 5, while it was rejected in respect of opposite party nos. 3 and 4. The revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to his wife from the date of the application, and further Rs. 3,000/- per month to his daughter, Priti, from the date of filing of the application until she attains majority.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist's marriage was solemnized with opposite party no.2. Due to matrimonial discord, she left the matrimonial home along with children and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was partly allowed by the court below vide impugned order dated 28-11-2024. He submitted that the amount awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant and disproportionate to the actual income and financial capacity of the revisionist. It is contended that the Family Court failed to properly consider the financial hardship of the revisionist, who is already burdened with multiple family responsibilities, medical expenses due to poor health, and other liabilities. The impugned order is alleged to have been passed without conducting any proper inquiry into the genuine economic condition and living standard of the revisionist.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the learned Family Court passed the impugned order after due consideration of all relevant facts and evidence placed on record, and that no illegality or perversity exists in the order so as to warrant interference by this Court. He also added that, instead of complying with the maintenance order, the revisionist has been filing cases before different courts, and the instant revision is merely a ploy to delay the payment.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party have further argued that the revisionist has not produced any document showing that he has ever made payment of the maintenance amount to the opposite party. It is further submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order.

¶11

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of J absir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. reported in (AIR 1997 SC 3397 ) has held as follows:-

¶13

"The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

¶14

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2875 , wherein the Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enacted to ensure that a woman, who has left or has been thrown out of her matrimonial home, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that the concept of sustenance does not merely mean "to lead the life of an animal", but rather that the wife is entitled in law to lead a life in a manner similar to that which she would have lived in the house of her husband.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that filing of this revision is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and there is no merit in this revision.

¶16

It seems that the instant proceedings have been initiated with the sole intention not to pay the maintenance amount or it has been filed just to delay the payment of maintenance amount to the wife.

¶17

The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.7.2025

¶19

pks

¶20

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

Ramendra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramendra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Praveen Kumar Saxena vs Aryavart Bank (Erstwhile Bhagirath Gramin Bank) Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Another

Shyampati vs Ram Karan Pandey and 4 Others

Krishna Narayan vs U.P. Housing Development Board U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad Lko and 2 Others

Sheelu vs State of U.P. and Another

Radheysyam Srivastava and Another vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Regional Manager and 5 Others

Km. Arishan Khatoon and Another vs Mohd. Meraj and 7 Others