SMT SONU DEVI AND ANOTHERversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2350 of 2024

Smt Sonu Devi And Another
                                                               .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)              :    Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :    Gavendra Kumar Mishra, G.A.

Court No. - 86
                   HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. The present revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the
impugned judgment and order dated 16.3.2024 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 295 of 2019 (Smt.
Sonu Devi and another) Vs. Vipin Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police
Station Khair, District Aligarh whereby the learned Principal Judge has
directed the opposite party no.2, Vipin Kumar (husband) to pay Rs. 3,000/-
per month to his wife/applicant No.1 (Smt. Sonu Devi) and Rs. 2,000/- per
month to his minor son applicant no.2 (Dheeraj) towards their maintenance.

2. As per the allegations made in the maintenance application the marriage
between revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on
5.3.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of the wedlock of revisionist
no.1 and opposite party no.2 a son (revisionist no.3) was born after
approximately 1.5 years of marriage. Just after the marriage the husband and
his relatives started demanding a bullet motorcycle and buffalo as dowry and
started harassing her physically and mentally. She informed her parents of
all these demands and her parents tried to resolve this issue with her in-laws
but they did not agree and continued to harass revisionist no.1 in various
ways. About 1-1/2 years ago her in-laws physically assaulted her and drove
her out of their house along with her minor son. She further stated that she is
unable to do any kind of sewing, knitting or embroidery work and, therefore,
she and her son minor son are on the verge of starvation. However, the
respondent is a practicing lawyer, earning approximately Rs. 50,000/- per
month. He owns 20 Bighas of good agricultural land in the village from
which he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The applicants/revisionists require
Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 5,000/- for her minor son as a maintenance
                                                         CRLR No. 2350 of 2024
                                2


allowance from the date of filing of the application.

3. The opponent presented an objection and accepted the marriage with the
revisionist no.1 and during their wedlock a son was born. He further stated
that he got registered as an advocate with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in
2017. He is presently a trainee advocate and preparing for a competitive
examination and is completely financially dependent on his parents with no
income of his own. He never harassed the revisionists/applicants for dowry
further more, due to revisionists' cruel behaviour and conduct he filed a
divorce petition to prevent himself, which is pending in the court. The
revisionist/applicant left matrimonial home without any reason.

4. In the oral evidence the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and Bani
Singh as P.W.2, in the documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner,
Photocopy of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh registration identity card of
opposite party no.2 (husband), photocopy of date of birth certificate of minor
son, Dheeraj, photocopy of F.I.R. under Section 498A, 307 IPC and 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act. The opponent got himself examined as opposite
party no.1. No documentary evidence has been field on behalf of the
opponent/husband.

5. As per the evidence on record and submissions of the parties, learned
family court has passed the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist nos. 1 and 2, learned
A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused
the record.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist herein submits that learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Aligarh has illegally granted less maintenance to the
revisionist nos. 1 and 2 of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month
respectively.

8. The learned trial court has not considered the income of opposite party
no.2 who earns Rs. 60,000/- per month. The opposite party no.2 has
deliberately concealed his income in his affidavit filed before the learned
Family Court. He further submits that revisionist is unable to maintain
herself and her son and she has claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to
herself and Rs. 5,000/- to her minor son.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2
                                                               CRLR No. 2350 of 2024
                                   3


have defended the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality,
infirmity or perversity in it and the instant criminal revision is liable to be
dismissed.

10. Now coming to the evidence of the parties, I find that admittedly
revisionist no.1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 and revisionist
no.2 is son of opposite party no.2. In her own petition the revisionist no.1
(wife) submits that after the marriage the husband and his relatives started
demanding bullet motorcycle and buffalo as dowry and started harassing her
physically and mentally, therefore, she lives with her parental home. She
further stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her minor son.

11. In support of their submissions, affidavits have been field by both the
parties. Revisionist no.1/applicant was examined as P.W.1 and Bani Singh,
father of opposite party no.1 was examined as P.W.2 and they have
supported the application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. Opposite party
no.2 Vipin Kumar (husband) has supported the version of the objection and
admitted doing of farming work with his father. Further more, he accepted
that he has been registered as an advocate with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh
since 2017 and concurrently engaged in G.S.T. office related business.
Additionally, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has found that
opposite party no.2 earns approximately 20,000/- rupees per month.
However, before deciding the case it would be appropriate to refer to
relevant statutory provision and case laws.

12. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of wives,
children and parents. The Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"125.Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- "(1) If any person
having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-"
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to
maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has
attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental
abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such
person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child,
father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the
same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
                                                                 CRLR No. 2350 of 2024
                                    4

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to
in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate
is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of
sufficient means:
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding
regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such
person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such
child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate
considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from
time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as
possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the
application to such person.
Explanation. For the purposes of this Chapter-
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act,
1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have attained his majority;
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce
from, her husband and has not remarried.

(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date
of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order,
any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying
the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such
person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or
the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining
unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under
this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a
period of one year from the date on which it became due : Provided further that if
such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she
refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated
by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is
satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation-If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a
mistress, it shall be considered to be a just ground for his wife's refusal to live with
him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or interim
                                                                   CRLR No. 2350 of 2024
                                      5

maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under
this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses
to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section
is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her
husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall
cancel the order."

13. In paragraph Nos.37, 38, 39 and 40 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another:
(2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"37. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1
SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this Court held that the object of
maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent
vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter
by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially
enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of
Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.
38.Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan
Singh v.Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was
conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had
left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to
enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the
husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was
required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not
avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the
statute.
39.The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in
relationship for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim under Section
125 CrPC came up for consideration in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh
Kushwaha [Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 :
(2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666. This judgment was referred to a
larger Bench.] before the Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman
have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid
marriage, such a woman would be entitled to maintenance. A man should not be
allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto
marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such marriage. A broad
and expansive interpretation must be given to the term "wife", to include even those
cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a
reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition
for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court relied on the Malimath
Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in 2003, which
                                                                CRLR No. 2350 of 2024
                                    6

recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a
reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage.
40.The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubinage, when a man
and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years. Unlike matrimonial
proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under Section
125 CrPC such strict standard of proof is not necessary. [Kamala v. M.R. Mohan
Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 732 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 242]."

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of Rajnesh
vs. Neha and Another (supra) has provided for criteria for determining
quantum of maintenance, which reads as under:-
"77.The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the
dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of
the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket
formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
78.The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the
parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is
educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent
source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same
standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the
applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the
subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her
employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after
adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.[
Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to
Vinny Parmvir Parmar v.Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ)
290]"
79.In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v.Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC
801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the
parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of
maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that
the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her
or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and
could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties
and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent
upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on
various factors brought before it.
80.On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income,
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom
he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be
taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be
paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well
                                                                                                    CRLR No. 2350 of 2024
                                                                        7

                                    as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that
                                    he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral
                                    duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications.
                                    [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 :
                                    (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]"

                                    15. As such, I find as per the evidence on record that the revisionist no.1,
                                    Smt. Sonu Devi is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 and
                                    revisionist no.2 (minor) is the son of opposite party no.2.

                                    16. I further find that revisionist no.1, Smt. Sonu Devi is living at her
                                    parental house due to physical and metal harassment by her husband and his
                                    relatives. Regarding source of income I find that revisionist has no means to
                                    maintain herself and her minor son living with her. Whereas her husband has
                                    income of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Hence I find that there is no doubt about
                                    entitlement of revisionist to get maintenance from opposite party no.2.

                                    17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the monthly
                                    income of her husband is Rs. 20,000/- per month, regarding the quantum of
                                    maintenance, I find that maintenance award granting sum of Rs. 3,000/- per
                                    month for revisionist no.1 and Rs. 2,000/- for revisionist no.2 by the Family
                                    Court to be appropriate, reasonable and in accordance with law and there is
                                    no perversity in the finding of fact or error of law requiring any interference
                                    in the impugned order. Hence the criminal revision is accordingly
                                    dismissed.

                                    18. Copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned court forthwith.


                                    February 23, 2026
                                    Kumar Manish
                                                                                               (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad