NITIN BANSALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2318 of 2025

Nitin Bansal
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Balram Singh,
                                Shiv Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Faiz

Court No. - 85
                   HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Mohd Faiz, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA
for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set
aside the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Meerut in Maintenance Case No. 1070 of 2019 (Smt. Nidhi
Bansal & Anr. Vs. Nitin Bansal), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the
revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- per
month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 4000/- to the opposite party
no.3 (minor daughter) from the date of application.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he was previously
employed as an accountant in a factory, but due to the litigation pending
against him, he has been expelled from his job. At present, he has no regular
source of income. It is further submitted that he had invested money in the
share market, and the entire investment has been lost. Hence, the amount of
maintenance awarded by the court below is excessive, exorbitant, and not
commensurate with the income of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the
revisionist further submits that opposite party no. 2 is an educated lady and
is engaged in stitching and embroidery work, from which she earns a
sufficient income and is capable of maintaining herself and her daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A.
opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that considering the current
inflation, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- in total cannot be said
to be excessive and beyond his capacity
                                                            CRLR No. 2318 of 2025
                                  2

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed
by learned trial court, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is
legally wedded wife of the revisionist and opposite party no.3 is his minor
daughter. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned,
the trial court has recorded its categorically finding that the opposite party
no.2 is living separately due 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 and her daughter. 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 finding unless the finding
recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law.

6. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, revisionist was employed
on the post of accountant in the factory but due to entangle in several cases
between the parties, he has lost his job and now he is unemployed. Except
there is nothing on record to show the income of the revisionist.

7. Since the revisionist has not claimed any physical deformity, this Court
presumes that the revisionist/husband is an able-bodied person and therefore,
he cannot shirk from his pious liability to maintain his wife. In the cases of
Rajnesh Versus 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. In Rajnesh v.
Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari,
(1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the
maintenance allowances must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of
the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so
extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent,
nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury.

8. In facts and circumstances of the case, even if the revisionist is assumed
as a skilled labourer, he can earn Rs.1000/- per day, which comes to Rs
30,000/- per month and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted to the extent of
25% of the net income of the husband which comes Rs. 7,500/-.

9. Thus, in view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the
maintenance amount awarded by the trial court to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- in
total by the trial court is not commensurated with the income of the
revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain
                                                                                            CRLR No. 2318 of 2025
                                                                   3

                                    his wife but the amount of maintenance should be commensurate with the
                                    income of the husband. Hence the maintenance awarded by the court below
                                    seems to be excessive and deserves to be modified, hence it is reduced to Rs.
                                    7500/- from Rs. 10000/- per month in total. Out of which Rs. 5000/- per
                                    month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2500/- per month to the opposite
                                    party no. 3 payable from the date of application.

                                    10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed.

                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Akbar
                                                                                          (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




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