Allahabad High Court
ARVIND KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY
Holding
The High Court upheld the Family Court's order granting maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month to the wife, finding the revisionist's challenge untenable.
Summary
The husband Arvind Kumar appealed a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs.3,000 per month to his wife Neelam Kumari under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The wife alleged that she was forced out of the matrimonial home due to physical and mental torture and dowry demands, and that the husband earned about Rs.2.5 lakh annually from agricultural land and shop businesses. The husband contended that the wife left voluntarily, had no legitimate claim to maintenance, and that his income was negligible. The High Court examined the evidence, including affidavits, photographs, and land records, and found that the wife was indeed the legally wedded spouse and was dependent with no income. Applying the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha and other Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance despite her departure from the home. Consequently, the Court upheld the Family Court's quantum of maintenance as reasonable and dismissed the criminal revision.
Issues considered
- Whether a wife who has left the matrimonial home voluntarily is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Whether the quantum of Rs.3,000 per month is appropriate given the husband's alleged income and the wife's financial dependence.
- Whether the Family Court's order is legally sustainable or liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- dowry harassment
- matrimonial home
- quantum of maintenance
- criminal revision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3742 of 2024
Arvind Kumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rakesh Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. List revised. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite
service of notice whereas learned counsel for the revisionist and learned
AGA for the State are present.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist
against the impugned judgement and order dated 10.05.2024 passed by
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonebhadra in Misc. Case No. 592 of
2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Neelam Kumari Vs. Arvind Kumar,
Police Station – Karma, District – Sonebhadra whereby learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3000/- per
month to his wife/opposite party no. 2 towards her maintenance from the
date of filing of application.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of
revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on 14.04.2019
according to Hindu rites and rituals and his father-in-law had given Rs.
50000/-, motor cycle, some ornaments and household articles. After 10
days of marriage his father-in-law died due to an electric shock. Opposite
party no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2019
with the allegation that her husband (revisionist) and his relatives
demanded a buffalo, a golden chain, LCD TV etc. Thereafter her father
came with some relatives to discuss and sort out the matter but it is
alleged that revisionist and his family continued physical and mental
torture on opposite party no. 2 for additional dowry. It is also alleged by
opposite party no. 2 that her husband (revisionist) used to consume lilquor
CRLR No. 3742 of 2024
2
and misbehave with her alongwith his friends.
4. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 made allegation against
her husband (revisionist) that he called her brother and sent her back to
her house on 13.08.2019 retaining all her clothes and jewellery and saying
that if the demand was not fulfilled, they would not bring her back home.
5. It is also alleged by opposite party no. 2 that she is living at her parental
house and is dependent on her father who is a poor man and unable to
maintain her and she herself also has no means of income. It is further
stated by opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist owns agricultural land
and also runs phtotostat and mobile shops and his annual income from
these resoruces is around Rs. 2,50,000/-.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the
revisionist/opponent (in his objection as. 15-A) has accepted that opposite
party no.2 is his legally wedded wife. He further stated that he never
harassed the opposite party no.2 (wife) for dowry. The opposite party no.2
was not maintaining matrimonial life with her husband and she herself
was not willing to live with him and she herself left her matrimonial home
and went to her parental home of her own wish. He stated that opposite
party no. 2 was avoiding to maintain physical relationship with him
claiming that she had menstruation problem. When the revisionist asked
her to use pregnancy kit, it revealed that she was pregnant. Being
shocked, when the revisionist asked about the pregnancy, opposite party
no. 2 told him that she had an illicit relationship with his Jija, prior to
marriage and she became pregnant from this relationship. Even then the
revisionist was ready to live with her but she refused. Thereafter the
revisionist filed Divorce Petition in court where again she refused to live
with him. He further stated that he earns his livelihood by doing work of
labour whenever he offered with labour work. Apart from that he has no
other source of income as alleged by opposite party no. 2.
7. In the oral evidence, the opposite party no. 2 Neelam Kumari,
examined herself as PW1 and Jag Narain as PW2. In the documentary
evidence, opposite party no. 2 has filed the marriage card and Aadhar
Card as list 5B-1, and list 21-B, annexing photographs of shops of her
husband and khatauni paper of land in the name of his husband’s father
along with her affidavit and affidavit of PW-2 which shows that
CRLR No. 3742 of 2024
3
revisionist is engaged in some business activity.
8. Revisionist Arvind Kumar has examined himself as DW1 and accepted
that opposite party no. 2 is his legally wedded wife but opposed the other
averments of opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist has other source of
income. As per the evidence on record and submissions raised on behalf
of the parties, learned Family Court passed the impugned order whereby
the Court allowed the maintenance to opposite party no.2/wife Neelam
Kumari of Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of filing maintenance
petition i.e. 25.11.2019.
9. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
12. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that impugned order is
not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be set aside. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted
that opposite party no.2/wife is not entitled to get maintenance because
she left the matrimonial home on her own will whereas revisionist was
willing to bring her back at home. All efforts to bring her to the
matrimonial home failed on account of her refusal. He further submitted
that even quantum of maintenance is not sustainable in view of the
income of the revisionist/husband.
10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. by defending the impugned order
submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned and
the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. On perusal of the evidence available on record, I find that opposite
party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and that her marriage
with the revisionist was solemnized on 14.05.2019 in accordance with
Hindu rites and rituals. The revisionist has also admitted these facts
before the trial court, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 admittedly the
legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The revisionist could not produce
any concrete evidence regarding the alleged illicit relationship of his wife
with her Jija.
12. In her petition, opposite party no.2/wife stated that revisionist and his
family members retained the goods/streedhan given by her parents at the
time of marriage when she was ousted from her matrimonial home. She
CRLR No. 3742 of 2024
4
stated that she was subjected to mental and physical torture and the
husband and her in-laws pressurized her to bring a buffalo, a golden
chain, LCD TV etc. She further stated that she is unable to maintain
herself as she has no source of income. In support of their submissions,
affidavits have been filed by both the parties. In the oral evidence, the
opposite party no. 2 Neelam Kumari, W/o Arvind Kumar examined
herself as PW1 and Jag Narain as PW2. In the documentary evidence,
opposite party no. 2 has filed the marriage card and Aadhar Card as list
5B-1, and list 21-B, annexing photographs of his shops and khatauini
paper of land in the name of his father along with her affidavit and
affidavit of PW-2 who also supported the version of opposite party no. 2
which shows that revisionist owns agricultural land and also runs shops of
phtotostat and mobile and by these resources his annual income in total is
around Rs. 2,50,000/-.
13. The revisionist has stated in his cross examination that he is not in any
kind business nor does he own any shop. He only goes to work when
offered labour work. He has admitted that opposite party no. 2 is his wife
and is ready to bring her wife back to his home.
14. Before arriving at the conclusion in the matter, it would be imperative
to refer the relevant statutory provisions.
15. 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
CRLR No. 3742 of 2024
5
thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate may from time to time direct:
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
CRLR No. 3742 of 2024
6
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 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."
16. 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
CRLR No. 3742 of 2024
7
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 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]."
17. 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
CRLR No. 3742 of 2024
8
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
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]"
18. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the evidence on
record, it is evident that that Smt. Neelam Kumar/opposite party no.2 is
legally wedded wife of revisionist, Arvind Kumar. It is further evident
that revisionist failed to prove that wife was living at her maika without
any rhyme and reason. On the contrary material brought on record clearly
indicate that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on
account of mental and physical torture by her husband and in-laws. The
revisionist also failed to prove that he works as a labour and has no other
CRLR No. 3742 of 2024
9
source of income as alleged by opposite party no. 2.
19. So far as the evidence with regard to the quantum of maintenance
awarded by learned Family Court to opposite party nos. 2 @ Rs. 3000/-
per month, is concerned, I find that as per the pleadings and evidence on
record produced by the wife – Smt. Neealm Kumari (Opposite party no.
2) on record, she has no means to maintain herself and she is living at her
parental house whereas her husband/revisionist owns some agricultural
land and also runs shops of phtotostat and mobile and by these resources
his annual income in total is around Rs. 2,50,000/-. Hence, there is no
doubt about the entitlement of opposite party nos. 2 to get maintenance
from the revisionist.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the quantum of
maintenance awarded by the Family Court concerned is not excessive, as
such I do not find any illegality or perversity in finding of fact or any
error of law, requiring any interference in the impugned order, hence the
present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly,
dismissed.
21. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith for
necessary compliance.
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.)
February 23, 2026
S.K.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…