Naresh Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Sri Muhammad Sarik Husain, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Yadvendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and learned AGA, and perused the material available on record.

¶12

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Case No. 884 of 2022 (Smt. Preeti Verma vs. Naresh Verma) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance from the date of the application.

¶13

The sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is working in a jewellery shop and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the shop for repairing ornaments does not belong to the revisionist. The trial court allowed the application filed by opposite party no. 2 without considering the income of the revisionist and awarded an excessive amount of maintenance.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, as well as learned AGA, have opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended that the shop is owned by the revisionist. In this regard, photographs of the shop along with the

¶15

CRLR No. 5390 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

revisionist has been filed as Annexure No. C.A.-1. It is further submitted that the trial court, after considering all aspects of the matter, granted the maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no. 2, which cannot be said to be excessive or beyond his capacity. Hence, the revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as well as the perusal of the record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the trial court has recorded a categorical finding that she is living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. There is nothing on record to show the income of opposite party no. 2; therefore, she is unable to maintain herself. The findings recorded by the trial court are findings of fact, and this Court, being a revisional court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own findings unless the findings recorded are perverse or contrary to facts and law.

¶19

So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, he is working in a jewellery shop and repairing ornaments. It is alleged that the revisionist is the owner of the shop; however, there is no evidence on record to establish that the revisionist is the owner of the said shop.

¶20

Since the revisionist has not claimed any physical deformity, this Court presumes that he is an able-bodied person and, therefore, cannot shirk his pious obligation to maintain his wife. In the cases of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383; and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, avoiding both extremes neither so extravagant as to be oppressive nor so meagre as to drive the wife to penury.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the revisionist is assumed to be a skilled labourer, he can earn Rs. 1,000/- per day, which comes to Rs. 30,000/- per month. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha , maintenance can be granted to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband, which

¶22

CRLR No. 5390 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

comes to Rs. 7,500/-.

¶25

Thus, in view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the trial court is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, but the amount should be commensurate with his income. Hence, the maintenance awarded by the trial court seems to be excessive and deserves to be modified. Accordingly, it is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 7,500/per month payable to opposite party no. 2 from the date of application.

¶26

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed.

¶27

March 18, 2026 Akbar

¶28

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naresh Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Verma 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

Anita Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Baijnath Tyagi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Pal vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nitin Bansal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others