Dismissed¶17

Ashish Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025CRLR/5104/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 CrPC maintenance; wife living separately from husband; neglect by husband; able-bodied husband bound to maintain wife; plea of unemployment and illness rejected; M.B.A. degree holder; Senior Marketing Manager salary Rs. 30,000/-; paying capacity; maintenance quantum Rs. 7,000/- per month upheld; Family Court Hathras; criminal revision dismissed at admission stage; Allahabad High Court; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; September 4, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and is living apart from him due to his neglect; being an able-bodied person, he is under a legal obligation to maintain her. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the wife, alleged by the revisionist to be living separately from him without sufficient reason, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and is living apart from him due to his neglect; being an able-bodied person, he is under a legal obligation to maintain her.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist's plea of illness fails: he suffers only minor respiratory ailments, the attached prescriptions relate to the year 2020, and a report on record shows his heart is normal in size and shape; his condition does not incapacitate him from working.

¶14

Key takeaways

As an M.B.A. degree holder who worked as Senior Marketing Manager on a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-, it cannot be concluded that the revisionist now has no capacity to earn; unless accurate income is disclosed, the trial court may act only on the basis of guess work.ratio¶17
Having regard to the status of the husband and wife, the maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month fixed in favour of the wife is not more than sufficient or excessive; the trial court committed no error in passing the order dated 30.07.2025 and it requires no interference by this Court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision dismissed at admission stage. The revisionist-husband challenged the order dated 30.07.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras under Section 125 Cr.P.C. fixing Rs. 7,000/- per month maintenance in favour of his wife, contending that she lived separately without sufficient reason and that he was jobless and ill. Held: the wife is the legally wedded wife living apart due to the husband's neglect; his ailments are minor respiratory complaints (prescriptions of 2020; heart normal in size and shape) and do not incapacitate him from working; as an able-bodied M.B.A. degree holder who earlier earned Rs. 30,000/- per month as Senior Marketing Manager, he is under legal obligation to maintain her, and pending accurate disclosure of income the trial court may act on guess work. The maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month is neither insufficient nor excessive; the trial court committed no error and no interference was called for.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5104 of 2025

¶3

Ashish Sharma

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Rahul Singh, Ranjeet Asthana
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 84

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case No. 22 of 2023, Computer Case No. UPHT0200000642023 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sahpau, District Hathras (Smt. Neeraj Sharma Vs. Ashish Sharma) and further prays to direct the learned court below to be consider the material and evidence and passed fresh order.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2/ the wife is living separate from the revisionist/husband without any sufficient reason. He further submits that marriage was performed in the year 2008 and out of wedlock a son was born who is living with the revisionist and is maintained by him. He further submits that the wife has left his house in the year 2017 without any cause. He also submits that she was never beaten or harassed or ill treated either by the revisionist or any other members of his family. He also submits that wife is a quarrelsome women and even she left her son which shows her cruel nature. He also submits that the revisionist has completed M.B.A. and joined the private job in the year 2022 and was working as Senior Marketing Manager on monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/- but due to illness of his parents he is presently jobless and fully dependent on the pension of his father. The son, Arush, is aged more than 14 and studying in Class 9th and he is bearing all the expenses

¶10

CRLR No. 5104 of 2025

¶11

¶12

relating to maintenance of the child. He also submits that the wife/opposite party no. 2 has graduated in B.A. and makes earning of Rs. 15,000/- per month by knitting and running beauty parlour and her mother is also getting Rs. 30,000/- per month as pension. The opposite party no. 2/the wife is living separate without sufficient reason from the husband, therefore, she cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance. He also submits that the revisionist being an unemployed person has no source of income but the learned trial court has fixed the maintenance Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of wife that is beyond his paying capacity, therefore, request to reduce the amount and set aside the order dated 30.07.2025.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she lived with him from the year 2008 to 2017 and a son was born with the wedlock. She was maltreated by the revisionist that was the reason she left her matrimonial home and started living in her Maika. In the year 2022, she went to her matrimonial home along with her mother even though she was beaten by the revisionist and was not allowed to enter in the house. This also shows neglect on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist was working as Senior Marketing Manager in Zebion Infotech Private Limited and getting salary Rs. 30,000/- per month as mentioned by him in his objection just after filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. he resigned from the company and later on joined somewhere and he concealed the fact of current place of working before the learned trial court to deprive the wife from the maintenance, even though the learned trial court has fixed the reasonable amount of maintenance in favour of wife.

¶14

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 30.07.2025, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him due to his neglect. So far as the illness of the revisionist is concerned as per record he is suffering from minor diseases related to respiratory system that cannot be said to be incapacitating him from working and also the prescriptions attached are related to the year 2020. There is report on record showing that the heart of the revisionist is normal in size and shape. In this way, the revisionist cannot be said to be ill and being able bodied person he is under legal obligation to maintain his wife who is living apart from him due to his neglect. Since he is M.B.A.

¶15

CRLR No. 5104 of 2025

¶16

¶17

degree holder and efficient in making income and according to status of husband and wife the amount of maintenance Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of wife cannot be said to be more than sufficient or excessive and unless the accurate income is disclosed by the party before the learned trial court it is to act only on the basis of guess work. Since he was working as Senior Marketing Manager and getting Rs. 30,000/- as monthly salary, therefore, it cannot be concluded that now he has no capacity to make such earning. In this way, the learned trial court did not commit any error in passing the order dated 30.07.2025 and fixing the amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of wife, so it does not require any interference by this Court. Thus this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶18

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed .

¶19

September 4, 2025 Suraj Srivastav

¶20

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶21

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

Ashish Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases