SMT VISHESH KUMARIversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3093 of 2024

Smt Vishesh Kumari
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)

                                  Versus
State of U.P. and another
                                                               .....Opposite

                                                                    Party(s)


Along with :
1.   Criminal Revision No. 2914 of 2024:
     Shailendra Singh
                                  Versus
     State of U.P. and another

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Jitendra Pal Singh, Satyendra Narayan
                                Singh, Sumit Daga, Sushil Kumar
                                Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Pal Singh, Sachin
                                Srivastava, Sumit Daga

Court No. - 87
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the revisionist in Criminal
Revision No. 3093 of 2024 and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 in
connected Criminal Revision No. 2914 of 2024, Mr. Jitendra Pal Singh,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 3093 of
2024 and learned counsel for the revisionist in connected Criminal Revision
No. 2914 of 2024, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and
perused the material available on record.

2. Both these Criminal Revisions have been filed against the same impugned
judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the
Trial Court") in Case No. 354 of 2022, Smt. Vishesh Kumari v. Shailendra
Singh, whereby the Trial Court allowed the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. of the revisionist (wife) and directed the opposite party no. 2
(husband) to pay Rs. 25000/- per month to the revisionist (wife) as
maintenance from the date of institution of application under Section 125
Cr.P.C.
                                                         CRLR No. 3093 of 2024
                                2

3. Criminal Revision No. 3093 of 2024 has been preferred by the wife
seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance granted by the Trial
Court. Criminal Revision No. 2914 of 2024 has been preferred by the
husband with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order of
maintenance granted by the Trial Court.

4. Since both these Criminal Revisions arise from the same impugned
judgment and order, these are being decided together, being Criminal
Revision No. 3093 of 2024 as the leading case.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of the aforesaid amount of
maintenance, the wife-revisionist has preferred the present Criminal
Revision, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is
illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is further contended
that the impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the
material available on record and that the Trial Court has committed a
manifest error of law in passing the same. Accordingly, a prayer has been
made for allowing the present Criminal Revision and setting aside the
impugned judgment and order.

6. Learned counsel for the husband-revisionist has assailed the impugned
judgment and order, contending that the amount of maintenance awarded by
the Trial Court is excessive and disproportionate to the income of the
revisionist-husband. It is further submitted that the impugned order is
contrary to the weight of evidence available on record and suffers from
errors of fact and law. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for setting aside
the impugned judgment and order and allowing the present Criminal
Revision.

7. Learned counsel for the wife-revisionist submitted that the Trial Court has
assessed the monthly income of the husband-revisionist at Rs. 2,00,000/-. It
is, therefore, contended that, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy,
(2017) 14 SCC 200, the wife-revisionist is entitled to maintenance of Rs.
50,000/- per month.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the husband-revisionist submits that the
Trial Court has erroneously assessed the monthly income of the husband-
revisionist at Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. Referring to paragraph 36 of the
impugned judgment, it is submitted that the revisionist-husband had
disclosed his monthly income as Rs. 12,000/- and had also filed Income Tax
                                                          CRLR No. 3093 of 2024
                                3


Returns for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, showing
his annual income as Rs. 2,33,976/-, Rs. 2,65,958/- and Rs. 33,307/-,
respectively. However, the Trial Court, without any cogent basis, observed
the monthly income of Rs. two lacs per month. Learned counsel submits that
such finding is contrary to the evidence available on record and is not
supported by any material evidence. It is, thus, contended that the impugned
judgment and order is liable to be set aside by this Court.

9. When confronted with the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
wife-revisionist submitted that the Trial Court has, in paragraph 36 of the
impugned judgment, observed that the husband-revisionist had an income of
Rs. 96,000/- from house property, Rs. 17,040/- from business and Rs.
2,12,978/- from other sources. It is further submitted that in paragraph 29 of
the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has recorded that although the
revisionist-husband had disclosed his income as Rs. 2,33,770/- for the
assessment year 2016-17, Rs. 2,03,540/- for the assessment year 2017-18
and Rs. 27,040/- for the assessment year 2018-19, he had not filed his
Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2019-20. It is further observed
that during the relevant period, he had earned Rs. 4,68,000/- from his
company, namely, Prabhu Precision Private Limited.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the aforesaid
company, the revisionist-husband is also the owner of another company,
namely, Tech India Store Security System Company, which is engaged in
the sale, purchase and repair of C.C.T.V. cameras, G.P.S. devices, L.E.D.s,
L.C.D.s, purifiers, presses, gas appliances, geysers and mixers. On
consideration of the aforesaid material, the Trial Court assessed the monthly
income of the revisionist-husband at Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is, therefore,
contended that the said finding of the Trial Court does not warrant any
interference by this Court and if any interference is called for, it ought only
to be for enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

11. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the record, we find substance in the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the wife-revisionist. The income disclosed by the
husband in his Income Tax Returns does not appear to be commensurate
with the other material available on record. It is difficult to accept that a
person having a monthly income of less than Rs. 20,000/- can establish and
operate two Private Limited Companies. Therefore, we do not find any
                                                                                              CRLR No. 3093 of 2024
                                                                     4


                                    infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court assessing the monthly
                                    income of the husband at Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, having regard to the
                                    economic and social status of the husband and the principles laid down by
                                    the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra), the amount of Rs.
                                    25,000/- per month awarded towards maintenance to the wife appears to be
                                    insufficient.

                                    12. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 3093 of 2024, preferred by the wife,
                                    succeeds and is hereby allowed, whereas Criminal Revision No. 2914 of
                                    2024, preferred by the husband, is dismissed. The impugned judgment and
                                    order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family
                                    Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 354 of 2022, Smt. Vishesh Kumari
                                    v. Shailendra Singh, is hereby set aside.

                                    13. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication. The Trial
                                    Court is directed to reconsider and decide the matter afresh, in the light of
                                    the observations made hereinabove and in accordance with law. The
                                    proceedings before the Trial Court shall be concluded expeditiously,
                                    preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a
                                    certified copy of this order.

                                    14. It is further directed that, in the meantime, the revisionist-husband shall
                                    continue to make regular monthly payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards
                                    maintenance to the revisionist-wife.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Brijesh Maurya
                                                                                      (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad