Mansoor Alam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mansoor Alam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Portion of the order dated 13.03.2024 relating to opposite party no.2 set aside; maintenance of opposite party no.2 remanded to the trial court for fresh decision considering her earning capacity; maintenance of opposite party no.3 confirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance amount awarded by the learned trial court qua opposite party no.2 was justified, given that she is working at Pt. Kamlapati Tripathi District Joint Hospital, Chandauli, and receiving Rs.21,000/- per month as honorarium, a fact allegedly not considered by the trial court. +1 more

Court's answer

It is an admitted fact that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

Ratio / Principle

This Court held that the maintenance amount awarded by the learned trial court qua opposite party no.2 is not justifiable, the record showing that she is working at Pt. Kamlapati Tripathi District Joint Hospital, Chandauli, and receiving Rs.21,000/- per month as honorarium.

Key takeaways

The order dated 13.03.2024, so far as it relates to opposite party no.2, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned trial court to decide her maintenance afresh, after taking into account her earning capacity.ratio¶16
The maintenance with regard to opposite party no.3 was confirmed.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Madan Pal Singh, J.), Criminal Revision No. 8237 of 2025, decided February 3, 2026. Revision against the order dated 13.03.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, in Maintenance Case No. 429 of 2019 (Afreen and another vs. Mansoor Alam), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which had directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to opposite party no.3. Relying on the trial court's finding (issue no.3) that opposite party no.2 had not approached the court with clean hands and had not furnished correct information regarding her education and income, and on the record showing that she works at Pt. Kamlapati Tripathi District Joint Hospital, Chandauli, receiving Rs.21,000/- per month as honorarium, the Court held that the maintenance awarded qua opposite party no.2 was not justifiable. Accordingly, that portion of the order was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court to decide her maintenance afresh after taking into account her earning capacity; the maintenance regarding opposite party no.3 was confirmed. Criminal revision partly allowed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8237 of 2025

Mansoor Alam

.....Revisionist(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Raj Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 85

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, in Maintenance Case No. 429 of 2019 (Afreen and another vs. Mansoor Alam), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned trial court directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to opposite party no.3.

The sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that opposite party no.2 is earning sufficiently, as she is working in Pt. Kamlapati Tripathi District Joint Hospital, Chandauli, and is receiving Rs.21,000/- per month as honorarium. This fact was not considered by the learned trial court while deciding the maintenance application. Hence, the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is excessive, exorbitant, and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contended that, considering the present inflation, the amount awarded by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the capacity of the revisionist. It was further submitted that the revision lacks merit and

CRLR No. 8237 of 2025

2

is liable to be dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and the record of the case including the impugned order, it is an admitted fact that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The trial court, while deciding issue no.3, recorded a finding that opposite party no.2 had not approached the court with clean hands and had not furnished correct information regarding her education and income. The document appended by the revisionist clearly shows that opposite party no.2 is working in Pt. Kamlapati Tripathi District Joint Hospital, Chandauli, and is receiving Rs.21,000/- per month as honorarium.

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount awarded by the learned trial court qua opposite party no.2 is not justifiable. Hence, the order dated 13.03.2024, so far as it relates to opposite party no.2, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the maintenance of opposite party no.2 afresh, after taking into account the earning capacity of opposite party no.2. So far as the maintenance with regard to opposite party no.3 is concerned, the same is hereby confirmed.

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

February 3, 2026

pks

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