INAAM ILLAHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1473 of 2024

Inaam Illahi
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)         :   A.Q. Zaidi, Mohammad Danish
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      :   G.A.

Court No. - 40
                   HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the
learned Family Court awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to
opposite party no.2-wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party
no.3-minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. At the outset, it is relevant to notice the conduct of the revisionist
before this Court. On his request, the matter was referred to the Mediation
Centre by order dated 22.03.2024, subject to deposit of Rs. 20,000/-, out
of which Rs. 15,000/- was to be paid to the wife on her first appearance.
The Mediation Centre has reported that the revisionist did not deposit the
said amount. Consequently, notices could not even be issued to the
opposite parties. Despite enjoying the interim order, the revisionist took
no effective step for mediation or settlement for more than two years.

4. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 was
solemnized on 22.12.2012 according to Muslim Personal Law. A
daughter, opposite party no.3, was born from the wedlock. The wife
alleged that she was subjected to dowry demands and cruelty and was
expelled from the matrimonial home on 15.03.2017 along with the minor
                                                        CRLR No. 1473 of 2024
                                2


daughter. She pleaded that she has no independent source of income and
is unable to maintain herself and the child.

5. The revisionist admitted the marriage and the birth of the daughter, but
denied cruelty and desertion. His principal defence was that the wife left
the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and that he is willing to
keep her. He further claimed that he earns only Rs. 250/- per day as a
stabilizer repair mechanic and has no sufficient income to pay
maintenance. He also alleged that the wife earns Rs. 50,000/- per month
from tuition and beauty parlour work.

6. The record, however, does not support the revisionist’s defence. In
compliance of guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, both parties had filed
their affidavits of assets and liabilities. The wife disclosed that she is a
graduate, a housewife, has no independent income, owns no property or
business, and is maintaining the minor daughter. The revisionist, though
educated and admittedly working as an electrician/mechanic, produced no
credible documentary material to establish that his income is only Rs.
250/- per day.

7. On the contrary, the wife placed material including municipal tax
assessment records, sale deed, pleadings and evidence from Original Suit
No. 186 of 2021 and Original Suit No. 560/563 of 2023, which indicated
that the revisionist and his family were engaged in electronic business.
The learned Family Court, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, recorded a finding that the revisionist is engaged in electronic
business and has sufficient income. Such finding is based on material
evidence and cannot be termed perverse.

8. The plea that the wife is earning Rs. 50,000/- per month has also
remained wholly unsubstantiated. A bald allegation of earning, without
proof, cannot defeat a claim for maintenance, particularly where the wife
                                                        CRLR No. 1473 of 2024
                               3


is maintaining a minor daughter and the husband has failed to disclose his
true financial capacity with candour.

9. The learned Family Court also noticed that during cross-examination
the revisionist had no proper knowledge about the school of his daughter
or her educational expenses. This circumstance assumes significance. A
father who seeks to avoid maintenance on the ground of willingness to
keep the child and wife must show genuine concern and responsibility,
not merely make a formal statement in Court.

10. The plea of willingness to maintain the wife in the matrimonial home
is also not bona fide. Before this Court itself, the revisionist sought
mediation but failed to deposit even the amount directed for initiating the
process. His conduct shows that the plea of willingness is more in the
nature of a defence to defeat maintenance than a genuine effort to resume
matrimonial obligations.

11. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to prevent
destitution and vagrancy. The jurisdiction is summary in nature and the
object is to ensure that a wife and minor child, who are unable to maintain
themselves, are not left without support. Once the Family Court has found
that the wife is living separately for sufficient reasons, has no independent
income, and the husband has sufficient earning capacity, the order of
maintenance cannot be interfered with merely on the basis of self-serving
assertions of poverty.

12. The amount awarded is modest. Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife and
Rs. 2,000/- per month to the minor daughter cannot be said to be
excessive, particularly in view of present living costs, educational
expenses and the obligation of the father to maintain his child. The
learned Family Court has also granted facility of payment of arrears in
five quarterly instalments, which sufficiently balances the interests of the
revisionist.
                                                                                           CRLR No. 1473 of 2024
                                                                   4


                                    13. Revisional jurisdiction is limited. This Court is not required to re-
                                    appreciate the entire evidence as an appellate court unless the order
                                    suffers from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. The
                                    impugned order reflects due consideration of pleadings, affidavits, cross-
                                    examination and documentary material. No perversity or illegality is
                                    made out.

                                    14. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed.

                                    15. No order as to costs.



                                                                                         (Garima Prashad,J.)
                                    April 27, 2026
                                    Mini




Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad