Partly allowed¶18

Sachin Kumar and Another v. Monika Devi

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2025CRLR/5194/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision No. 5194 of 2024 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:2840), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Manjive Shukla J.; interim maintenance under proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Criminal Misc. Case No. 457 of 2023 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar; quantum held excessive against admitted income of Rs. 14,000/- p.m.; reduced to composite interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. for wife and daughter; final maintenance adjudication expressly left to trial court; revision partly allowed; opposite party unrepresented at hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim maintenance order modified: Revisionist No. 1 to pay a composite interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party covering herself and Revisionist No. 2; adjudication of final maintenance left to the trial court on evidence.

Sachin Kumar and Another vs Monika Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court committed any manifest error of law in awarding interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party (wife). +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

With the marriage admitted, Revisionist No. 1's income of Rs. 14,000/- per month admitted, and no evidence that the opposite party is employed, the trial court committed no manifest error of law in awarding interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

As the only material on Revisionist No. 1's monthly income was his own admission of Rs. 14,000/- per month, the trial court erred in awarding aggregate interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which is excessive on the face of the record.

¶15

Key takeaways

A composite interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month payable by Revisionist No. 1 for the opposite party and Revisionist No. 2 would serve the ends of justice.ratio¶17
This revision does not adjudicate the parties' rights to final maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; both sides remain free to lead evidence before the trial court, which shall decide the maintenance case on the evidence led.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manjive Shukla, J.) partly allows a criminal revision against the interim maintenance awarded under the proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar (Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to the wife, Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to the daughter): the Court finds no manifest error in awarding maintenance to the wife, since the marriage is admitted, the husband admits earning Rs. 14,000/- p.m., and there is no evidence of her employment; however, the aggregate Rs. 15,000/- p.m. is held excessive against the admitted income. The order is modified to a composite interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. for the wife and daughter, and adjudication of final maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is expressly left open to the trial court on evidence.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2840

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5194 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Sachin Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- Monika Devi Counsel for Revisionist :- Sachin Kumar (In-Per

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sachin Kumar, Revisionist No. 1 appearing in person in this revision.

¶7

The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 17.8.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 457 of 2023 (Smt. Monika Devi & Anr. Vs. Sachin Kumar) whereby, in exercise of power under the proviso appended to Section 125 Cr.P.C. interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of the opposite party and interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of Revisionist No. 2.

¶8

It is to be noted, at the very outset, that this Court while entertaining this revision had passed a detailed interim order on 15.10.2024, whereby notice was issued to the opposite party i.e. wife and it had been provided that Revisionist No. 1 shall be liable to pay only total interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party.

¶9

As per the service report available in the order sheet notice has been served on opposite party but no one is present on her behalf.

¶10

The Revisionist No. 1 who has appeared in person has argued that the opposite party is living in his house and therefore, it cannot be said that she is not living with Revisionist No. 1 for justifiable reasons.

¶11

It has further been argued that Revisionist No. 2 who is daughter of Revisionist No. 1 is living with Revisionist No. 1 and is being maintained by him. The Revisionist No. 1 has also argued that he at present is earning only Rs. 14,000/- per month and therefore, the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded in favour of the opposite party and interim maintenance of Rs.

¶12

5,000/- per month awarded in favour of Revisionist No. 2 is excessive.

¶13

I have considered the arguments advanced by Revisionist No. 1 and I find that proviso appended to Section 125 Cr.P.C. contemplates that the trial court on prima-facie assessment of the over all facts and circumstances of the case can award interim maintenance in favour of the persons claiming the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Revisionist No. 1 has not denied that the opposite party is his legally wedded wife, he has also admitted before this Court that he is earning Rs. 14,000/- per month.

¶14

Once the marriage of the opposite party with Revisionist No. 1 is admitted and it is also admitted that Revisionist No. 1 is earning Rs. 14,000/- per month and further as on date, there is no evidence on record to show that the opposite party is employed, this Court is of the view that the trial court while awarding interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party has not committed any manifest error of law. Now this Court proceeds to consider, as to whether the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded in favour of the opposite party and the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded in favour of Revisionist No. 2 is adequate and commensurate with the monthly income of Revisionist No. 1 or not.

¶15

This Court is of the view that once there is no evidence before the trial court in respect of the monthly income of Revisionist No. 1 except his admission that he is earning Rs. 14,000/- per month, the trial court, while awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/per month in favour of opposite party and Revisionist No. 2, has committed error as the interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month on the face of record is excessive.

¶16

This Court while entertaining this revision had passed a detailed order and had directed that Revisionist No. 1 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to opposite party and Revisionist No. 2.

¶17

This Court is of the view that if a direction is issued to Revisionist No. 1 to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as a composite interim maintenance for the opposite party and Revisionist No. 2, the ends of justice would be served.

¶18

Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 7.8.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

¶19

Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 457 of 2023 (Smt. Monika Devi & Anr. Vs. Sachin Kumar) is hereby modified to the extent that Revisionist No. 1 shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party as a composite interim maintenance for the opposite party and Revisionist No. 2.

¶20

It is also made clear that this Court in this revision has not adjudicated over the rights of the parties for final maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, it is open for Revisionist No. 1 and the opposite party to lead their evidence before the trial court to prove their case and the trial court on the basis of the evidence led before it shall decide the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Gaurav

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin Kumar and Another v. Monika Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar and Another v. Monika Devi

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

Ali Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam and 9 Others vs State of Up

Karan Singh and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naseem and 5 Others vs Addl. Commissioner Administration-Ii, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Chakradhar Shukla vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others