Raj Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6097 of 2025

Raj Kumar Maurya

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, Kiran Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satendra Singh, Ullas Mishra

¶8

Court No. - 85

¶9

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶11

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj, in Maintenance Case No. 622 of 2015 (Chaitanya Arav (Minor) vs. Raj Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 25,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 (minor son) from the date of the impugned order.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that despite sincere efforts, the wife of the revisionist refused to return to the matrimonial home and has deserted the revisionist without any justifiable reason. It was further submitted that the wife of the revisionist is also working as a Cashier in a bank, is financially sound, and is equally responsible for maintaining the minor son.

¶13

It was argued that the revisionist is a Sub-Divisional Officer in B.S.N.L. and is earning approximately Rs. 1,21,000/- per month. In contrast, the wife of the revisionist is also a Cashier in a bank and earns approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month. It was urged that the learned Family Court failed to consider the income and earning capacity of both parents and wrongly placed the entire burden of maintenance upon the revisionist.

¶14

CRLR No. 6097 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandu Sridevi vs. Chandu Sesha Rao, Civil Appeal No. 1159 of 2023 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26395 of 2019, wherein it has been observed that where both the husband and wife are earning, they share a joint responsibility to maintain their children and the quantum of maintenance must be fixed keeping in view the ground realities.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the revision and submitted that opposite party no. 2 is aged about 16 years, studying in Class XI at City Montessori School and is also receiving coaching at Allen Career Institute, for which approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month is required to be deposited as fees. It is further submitted that the payment receipts showing month-wise deposit of fees are available on record. Apart from the said educational expenses, expenditure towards food, lodging, medical treatment, travelling and other day-to-day requirements of the minor child are also required to be incurred. Considering the present cost of education and prevailing inflation, the learned Trial Court, after considering all aspects of the matter, has allowed the application of the minor son and the amount awarded is neither excessive nor beyond the financial capacity of the revisionist.

¶18

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the material available on record. The employment and income of the wife of the revisionist is an admitted fact. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandu Sridevi (supra), both parents have a shared responsibility to maintain their children.

¶19

This Court further finds that the learned Family Court, while determining the maintenance allowance, has considered all relevant aspects of the matter. The minor child is pursuing his education and coaching, which requires substantial expenditure. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be sufficient for the overall maintenance and educational needs of the minor son. Apart from educational expenses, other expenses relating to food, lodging, medical needs, travelling and day-to-day requirements are also required to be

¶20

CRLR No. 6097 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

incurred. However, considering that both parents are earning and have a shared responsibility towards the maintenance of the minor child, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month directed to be paid by the revisionist by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Keeping in view the status of the parties, the needs of the minor child and the prevailing inflation, the said amount appears to be reasonable and realistic for the proper maintenance and education of the minor child.

¶23

In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶24

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.

¶25

March 12, 2026 Akbar

¶26

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶27

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

Raj Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raj Mani Patel @ Raju and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Humaira Riyaz Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Saurabh Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harbhajan Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others