Allahabad High Court

ABHISHEK SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

The Family Court’s order granting maintenance to the wife and child is upheld and the revision is dismissed.

Summary

The revision petition filed by Abhishek Sharma challenged a Family Court order granting monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000 to his wife and Rs.5,000 to their child, alleging the amount was excessive and that the wife, a qualified MBA graduate, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and could support herself. The wife contended that the parties were in a live‑in relationship before marriage, that the child was born within wedlock and is the petitioner's legitimate offspring, and that caste‑based ostracism caused the marital discord. The court examined the parties' evidence, noting that the wife was employed at the time of the proceedings and that the petitioner's income had been properly assessed in line with Supreme Court precedent (Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Dhowdhury). It held that the Family Court’s assessment of maintenance was reasonable, the child’s legitimacy was undisputed, and there was no legal basis to set aside the order. Consequently, the revision was dismissed for lack of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the maintenance award of Rs.15,000 per month is excessive and beyond the husband's financial capacity
Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance despite being employed and having an MBA degree
Whether the wife’s voluntary departure from the matrimonial home bars her claim for maintenance
Whether the child born within the marriage is legitimate and entitled to maintenance
Whether the revision petition is maintainable in view of the Family Court’s findings

Subjects

maintenance
family law
marital dispute
legitimacy of child
caste discrimination
revision petition
Family Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3897 of 2024

Abhishek Sharma
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhupendra Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2024
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah, by which a sum
of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded to opposite party no.1 and a sum of Rs.
5,000/- has been awarded to opposite party no. 2 as monthly maintenance.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the sum of Rs.
15,000/- is excessive, arbitrary, and beyond the financial resources of the
revisionist. He next submitted that the applicant is jobless and
unemployed person. He further submitted that disputes arose between the
husband and wife following the birth of a child in the family, as
respondent No. 2 had given birth to a child merely two months after the
marriage and the same was not liked or otherwise disliked by the family
members. He also submitted, that the opposite party no. 2 on her own free
will left her matrimonial home and therefore, she is not entitled for any
relief whatsoever. He further submitted that the revisionist has made
unreasonable demand by stating that, she is ready to live in the
matrimonial home, whereas the reality is that she has already separated
from the family. This demand is not valid in the eyes of the law. He
further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is a qualified lady and is
having a M.B.A. degree to her credit and therefore, is capable of taking
care of herself and her child and therefore, no maintenance is required to
be paid to the opposite party no. 2. He further submitted that the child
CRLR No. 3897 of 2024
2

born of the said marriage is not the child of the revisionist, and prayed
that the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Etawah, dated 30.04.2024, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has
submitted that the revisionist and opposite Party No. 1 were living in a
'live-in' relationship, and this relationship continued for some time and on
being ‘live-in’ relationship for subsequent period, the opposite party No. 2
became pregnant, following which their marriage was solemnized and
within two months of the marriage, opposite party No. 2 gave birth to a
child. Opposite Party No. 2 has categorically stated that, the child born of
the marriage belongs solely to the revisionist and to no one else, and the
revisionist, also, has admitted that the child born of the marriage, belongs
solely to him and to no one else. He further submitted that the revisionist
and the opposite party no. 2 belong to different castes, and therefore, their
belonging to different castes is one of the main reason and genesis of the
dispute arose between the parties. Subsequent to the solemnization of
their marriage, and this is the very reason, why the opposite party No. 2
was ousted from the home by the revisionist's family. As far as having a
degree is concerned, merely holding a degree is not sufficient, it does not
imply that any individual possessing a Master's degree in 'Business
Administration' (MBA) automatically acquires a right or entitlement to
employment and further submitted that at the relevant point of time,
opposite party No. 2' was still pursuing her MBA studies.

5. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that the genesis of
the matrimonial discord arose from the fact that the family members came
to know that opposite party no. 2 belongs to another caste and therefore,
the opposite party no. 2 was ostracised from the family. So far as the birth
of the child is concerned, the same has not been disputed is born from the
wedlock, which has come on record before learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Etawah. As far as the employment of opposite party No. 2
is concerned, it has been stated that opposite party No. 2 was employed
on the date the application was pending before the learned Family Court.
So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, there is no dispute,
and the learned Family Court has assessed the revisionist's reasonable
income, based on the evidence adduced during the hearing before the
CRLR No. 3897 of 2024
3

learned Principal Judge, Family Court as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Dhowdhury
Nee Nandy passed in Civil Appeal No. 5369 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP
(C) No. 34653 of 2016), decided on 19.04.2017.

6. The order under challenge suffers from no infirmity or illegality and
calls for no interference by this Court. The revision lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.

(Harvir Singh,J.)
March 18, 2026
Faridul

Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…