Disposed¶15

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2025CRLR/4889/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. interim maintenance; 25% of husband's net salary benchmark (Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129); Family Court Hathras order dated 31.07.2025 upheld; maintenance Rs.11,000/- per month not excessive; husband PAC constable salary Rs.41,220/- per month; wife living in maika due to neglect; arrears in 12 equal monthly installments; CRLR No. 4889 of 2025; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; Allahabad High Court; decided September 15, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision disposed of finally at the admission stage itself; the Family Court's order of Rs.11,000/- per month interim maintenance upheld without interference; arrears directed to be paid in 12 equal monthly installments along with current maintenance; no relief to the revisionist. ¶15

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month fixed by the Family Court in favour of the wife is excessive and disproportionate to the revisionist's salary (Rs.41,220/- per month) considering his liabilities towards his mother, sister and family, and liable to be set aside or reduced. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Applying the Apex Court's ruling in Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (25% of the husband's net salary as just and proper maintenance), the amount of Rs.11,000/- per month in favour of the wife cannot be said to be disproportionate or more than sufficient.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The opposite party no.2 (wife) started living in her maika due to neglect on the part of the revisionist; she is graduate, B.T.C. and TET qualified but nothing on record shows she earns any income, while the revisionist himself stated his salary as Rs.41,220 per month.

¶15

Key takeaways

There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court and it does not require any interference by this Court.ratio¶15
Arrears of maintenance shall be paid in 12 equal installments payable month to month along with the current amount.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the judgment/order dated 31.07.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras (Case No. 61 of 2023, Smt. Neha v. Amit Kumar) fixing Rs.11,000/- per month as interim maintenance for the wife. The revisionist, a P.A.C. constable stating his salary as Rs.41,220/- per month, contended the award was excessive and disproportionate given his liabilities towards his mother, sister and family, and that the wife was living separately without sufficient reason. The Court noted the wife (graduate, B.T.C. and TET qualified) had left for her maika due to the revisionist's neglect and that nothing showed she earned any income. Reliance was placed on Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 (25% of the husband's net salary as just and proper maintenance) to hold that Rs.11,000/- per month was neither disproportionate nor more than sufficient. Finding no illegality in the trial court's order, the Court disposed of the revision at the admission stage, directing arrears to be paid in 12 equal monthly installments along with current maintenance.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4889 of 2025

¶3

Amit Kumar

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Narendra Pal Shukla	Singh, Rajat	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 84

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AG.A. for the State.

¶9

Present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, in Case No. 61 of 2023 (Smt. Neha Versus Amit Kumar), under Section 125 Cr. P.C., Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras, whereby learned judge has ordered for the maintenance at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the case.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no.2 is wife, who is living separately from the husband/revisionist. An application has been filed by the opposite party no.2/wife under Section 125 Cr. P.C., and learned trial court has fixed Rs.11,000/- per month as interim maintenance in her favour, whereas revisionist is working as a constable in P.A.C. and get salary Rs. 41,220/per month. He also submitted that there are liability of mother, sister and other members of his family and Rs.11,000/- per month out of Rs.41220/- as interim maintenance in favour of wife, are excessive and disproportionate. As the revisionist is ready to keep her with him as wife, but she is living separately from him without any sufficient reason, as such she is not entitled for interim maintenance, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 31.07.2025 and reduce the amount of interim

¶11

CRLR No. 4889 of 2025

¶12

¶13

maintenance as fixed by the learned trial court.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶15

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A.,perusal of record and the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by learned trial court, it appears that revisionist and opposite party no.2 were wedded to each other in the year 2020 and due to neglect on the part of the revisionist, she started living in her maika. She has made several allegations against the members of the family of the revisionist and also said to be misbehaved. The opposite party no.2 is graduate, B.T.C. and TET qualified woman, but there is nothing on record to show that she makes any income in either way and on the other hand, the basic salary of the revisionist was Rs. 21,700/- per month in the year 2018 and in the intervening year, as a result of increment, the salary might have increased. The revisionist himself has stated about his salary Rs. 41,220 per month. Apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari and Anr, (1970) 3 SCC 129 , held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the opposite party-wife, therefore, amount of Rs. 11,000/- in favour of wife cannot be said to disproportionate or more than sufficient. There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. So far as amount of arrears is concerned, it shall be paid in 12 equal installments payable month to month with current amount.

¶16

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

¶17

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶18

September 15, 2025 T.S.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar 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