Ankur Alias Ankur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5396 of 2025

¶3

Ankur Alias Ankur Singh

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shakil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 85

¶7

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Shakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶9

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside the order dated 02-08-2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 377 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned trial court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 from the date of the application.

¶10

3. The sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is engaged in labour work, has no regular source of income, and is solely dependent upon his parents for his livelihood. Hence, the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is excessive, exorbitant, and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist.

¶11

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contended that, considering the present rate of 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 is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of 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. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, there is no documentary evidence on record. However, even if the revisionist is considered to be a labourer, it would be reasonable to assume that he earns approximately Rs. 600/- per day, amounting to about Rs. 18,000/- per month. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR 2017

¶13

CRLR No. 5396 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

SC 2383; and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, it has been observed that maintenance may be granted up to the extent of 25% of the husband’s net income. Accordingly, 25% of Rs. 18,000/- comes to Rs. 4,500/- per month.

¶16

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the total maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rs. 4,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3) is not commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife; however, the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to his income. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the court below appears to be excessive and deserves to be modified. Hence, it is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 4,500/- per month (Rs. 3,500/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3), payable from the date of the application.

¶17

7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. The amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 4,500/- per month (Rs. 3,500/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3), payable from the date of the application.

¶18

8. In case the revisionist has already paid any amount towards maintenance, the same shall be adjusted. If any arrears remain unpaid, the revisionist shall pay the same in eight equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 20th April, 2026, and the remaining instalments shall be paid on or before the fifteenth day of each succeeding calendar month.

¶19

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶20

March 18, 2026

¶21

pks

¶22

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

Ankur Alias Ankur Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Alias Ankur Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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