Allahabad High Court
VIKESH SHAHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The maintenance order is valid as the husband was financially capable and no evidence of mental incapacity was produced, leading to dismissal of the revision.
Summary
The revisionist, Vikesh Shahi, challenged a Family Court order granting Rs.3,500 per month to his wife and Rs.2,500 per month to his son as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, alleging that the total amount was excessive and that he was mentally unstable and unemployed. The opposite parties contended that no medical evidence of mental illness was presented and that the revisionist was a qualified mechanical diploma holder earning a salary of Rs.40,000, sufficient to meet the maintenance. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the revisionist had not substantiated his claim of incapacity with any medical documentation. Relying on the principle that a party’s assertion of inability must be supported by concrete proof, the Court held that the trial court correctly assessed the husband’s financial capacity. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the revision as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC can be set aside on the ground of the husband’s alleged mental instability and inability to pay.
- Whether the trial court erred in not requiring medical evidence to substantiate the claim of mental illness.
- Whether the amount of Rs.6,000 per month is excessive in view of the husband’s income.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- Section 125 CrPC
- maintenance
- family law
- revision
- mental illness
- financial capacity
- order dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3302 of 2024
Vikesh Shahi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Arurit Kumar, Vinay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Along with :
1. Criminal Revision No. 2244 of 2024:
Smt Sanyukta Shahi and another
Versus
State of U.P. and another
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
2. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated
28.3.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in
Case No.244/ 2019 (Smt. Sanyukta Shahi and others Vs. Vikesh Shahi),
under Section 125 CrPC, Police Station Gola, District Gorakhpur, whereby a
sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month to opposite party No.2- wife and a sum of Rs.
2,500/- per month to opposite party No.3- son have been awarded as
maintenance.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that, the said
amount of Rs. 6,000/- in total, is excessive, exorbitant and beyond the
financial resources of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that, the learned trial court failed to consider the entire facts
and evidence on record, while passing the order under challenge. Learned
counsel for the revisionist further submits that, the revisionist is not mentally
stable and is undergoing treatment, and therefore, is unemployed as on date
and is not capable of earning any income, therefore, the impugned order
dated 28.3.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
CRLR No. 3302 of 2024
2
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2
and 3 submits that, the ground taken by the revisionist that, the revisionist is
not mentally stable, could not be proved before the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gorakhpur, as much as, the revisionist merely stated that, he
is not mentally well, but no such evidence or any prescription of medical
treatment or medical papers were ever placed before the learned Family
Court and therefore, the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the
facts, has passed the impugned order of maintenance. Learned counsel for
the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 further submits that, the revisionist is a
diploma holder in mechanical automobiles and at the relevant point of time,
was earning a salary of Rs. 40,000/-, which was sufficient for taking care of
the entire family, financially or otherwise. Merely because the revisionist has
made a statement that, he is not mentally stable, cannot be a ground, unless
and until, the same is proved by complete evidence on record. Learned
counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further submits that, in order to shy
away from the responsibility and duty to pay the said amount of
maintenance, the revisionist has taken a false plea of not being mentally
stable and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and after going
through the impugned order dated 28.3.2024, it has come on record that, at
the relevant point of time, the revisionist-husband was earning a sufficient
income in order to take care of the entire family by the salary of the
revisionist, however, the revisionist has merely stated that, he is not mentally
stable, is not sufficient to sustain, unless and until, a sufficient and concrete
evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the cause of illness, also
supported by medical papers and prescription of the concerned Doctors.
Even as on date, the revisionist is a qualified person and is capable of
earning his livelihood besides being capable of paying the said amount of
Rs. 6,000/- to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, as held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of
6. Under such circumstances, no illegality or infirmity is found in the
impugned order dated 28.3.2024, and therefore, the instant revision, being
devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
March 18, 2026
Gurpreet Singh
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GURPREET SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…