Allahabad High Court
VINEET @ GOLDIversusState of UP Others
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The revision lacks merit and is dismissed, upholding the family court’s maintenance order.
Summary
The revisionist, Vineet @ Goldi, challenged a family court order dated 8‑12‑2023 that directed him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to the opposite party. He argued that his salary of Rs 12,000 per month and lack of other income made the amount excessive and that the trial court ignored his evidence, including photographs and a pen‑drive, which he claimed were not properly authenticated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The opposite party contended that the revisionist, being an MBA graduate, runs a property business, operates City Cable and pays GST, and therefore has sufficient means to pay the maintenance. The High Court examined the parties’ submissions, noted the revisionist’s multiple sources of income, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan. It held that the lower court’s assessment was not erroneous and that the revision lacked merit. Consequently, the revision was dismissed and the maintenance order upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the family court erred in fixing a monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 given the revisionist’s alleged financial incapacity
- Whether the electronic evidence (photographs, pen‑drive) was admissible without a Section 65B certification under the Indian Evidence Act
- Whether the revisionist’s income from business activities and GST registration can be presumed sufficient to meet the maintenance obligation
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65B
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- revision
- financial capacity
- electronic evidence
- Section 65B
- adultery
- income assessment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 157 of 2024
Vineet @ Goldi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Brijendra Kumar
Srivastava, Shekhar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Tyagi, Ankur Singh, G.A.,
Rajesh Singh
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankur Singh, learned
counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
8.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, by
which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded to opposite party No. 2.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the said
amount of Rs. 10,000/- is excessive and beyond the financial resources of
the revisionist, as the salary of the revisionist is barely Rs. 12,000/- per
month, therefore, he is not able to pay the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- to
opposite party No. 2.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the
revisionist has no other source of income, whatsoever, and is doing some
private job. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court did not consider the facts brought on
record and the evidences as submitted by the revisionist (herein) and has
passed the order in a cursory manner. The said amount of Rs. 10,000/-
awarded as monthly maintenance to opposite party No. 2, is beyond the
financial capacity of the revisionist.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations of adultery have
also been levelled against opposite party No. 2. It is also submitted that
certain photographs were placed before the learned Family Court, besides
that, one pen drive was also filed but the learned Family Court has arrived at
the finding that the said photographs were denied by opposite party No. 2
that the photographs annexed are not her photographs. Moreover, other
CRLR No. 157 of 2024
2
electronic evidences, which were placed on record, were not supported by
any certificate, as prescribed under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Learned counsel prayed that the order dated 8.12.2023 is liable to be
quashed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the
order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur is in
accordance with law, as no illegality, whatsoever, has been found to be
committed by learned Family Court and further submitted that the revisionist
(herein) is having degree of M. B. A. (Masters of Business Administration)
and therefore, is capable of earning sufficient income. Moreover, it is also
contended by learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 that besides having
M.B.A. degree, the revisionist is also having some property business, from
where sufficient income is being generated. Besides that, revisionist is also
running City Cable and is having G. S. T. No., therefore, any person paying
the tax in this country, cannot be presumed to be a poor person and Rs.
10,000/- as awarded by learned Family Court, is barely minimum, for which
the applicant has appropriate remedy for seeking enhancement of the said
amount, as provided under law.
7. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that the sources of
income of the revisionist have been shown to be multifold; first of all,
revisionist is having degree of Masters in Business Administration (M.B.A.);
secondly, revisionist is running property business; and thirdly running City
Cable and is paying Goods and Services Tax (G. S. T.) to the Government
and therefore, his income cannot be presumed to be less, that he is not
capable of paying Rs. 10,000/- to opposite party No. 2 as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shamima farooqui Vs Shahid Khan reported
in AIR 2015 SC 2025.
8. In view of the above, the instant revision lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
March 18, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…