Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7737 of 2025

Rajeev Kumar

Versus	.....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Satish Chandra Tiwari G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 85

¶5

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶6

List revised. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. No one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 04.06.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No.1620 of 2013 (Smt. Ratnesh Kumari @ Guddo vs. Rajeev Kumar), whereby the learned trial court has allowed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3500/- per month to the opposite party no.2.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist is a laborer and he has no regular source of income, while the opposite party no.2 is working as "Aasha worker" and she earns handsome amount from there and she is able to maintain herself. Hence, the order passed by learned trial court is against the law and arbitrary. Except the above, no arguments was made by learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer as made by learned counsel for the revisionist and support the impugned judgement and order dated 04.06.2015 passed by trial court.

¶10

CRLR No. 7737 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and by perusal of the impugned judgement, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to relation of the parties as husband and wife. The revisionist admitted in his reply that the opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and their marriage has been solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals. Perusal of the impugned judgment also reflects that the opposite party no.2 was being tortured by the revisionist on account of additional demand of dowry, i.e., T.V., golden chain and rupees five thousand cash and she is living separately due to negligent on the part of revisionist. It is also admitted by the counsel for the revisionist during the course of argument that he has taken an ex-parte decree of divorce against the opposite party no.2, which reflects that actually the revisionist wants to get rid of her. Para no.14 of the impugned judgement also reflects that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income, she is almost illiterate and rustic woman, while it has come into the evidence that the revisionist is doing the job of animal husbandry. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the trial court while deciding the issue no.3 come to the conclusion that income of the revisionist is not less than Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶13

In the cases of Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that maintenance allowance can be granted up to 25% of the net income of the husband.

¶14

Since the Court itself reached to the conclusion that monthly income of revisionist is Rs.10,000/-, hence 25% of the total monthly income, i.e., Rs.2500/- should be awarded as per month maintenance and the amount of Rs.3500/- per month is excessive, keeping in view of the income of the revisionist and against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar (supra) . Hence, the amount of maintenance of Rs.3500/- deserves to be reduced to Rs.2500/-. Accordingly, the judgement and order dated 04.06.2015 is modified to the above extent.

¶15

It is made clear that the amount of maintenance shall be

¶16

CRLR No. 7737 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

determined on the basis of amount fixed by this Court, i.e., Rs.2500/- per month from the date of filing application and if any amount is already paid, the same shall be adjusted in the amount of arrears and if the amount of arrears is still unpaid, the same shall be paid in 20 easy equal installments. The first installment shall be paid on 10.02.2026 and rest of the 19 installments shall be paid on the same day of next succeeding months.

¶19

The instant revision stands partly allowed accordingly.

¶20

January 21, 2026 Saif

¶21

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev 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

Smt Narendra Kaur vs State of U.P. and Another

Vibhor Maheshwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Divya Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mansoor Alam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan vs State of Up and Another