RAMAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3972 of 2023

Raman And Another
                                                           .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Deepak Pandey, Dinesh Kumar Kashyap
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Tiwari, G.A., Mamta Singh,
                                Nidhi Agarwal, Praveen Tiwari

Court No. - 85
                 HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. By means of the instant criminal revision, revisionists have assailed the
judgement and order dated 28.6.2023 passed by the Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Etawah in Case No.32 of 2018 (Raman Devi vs. Rajiv
Kumar), under Section 127 Cr.P.C., Police Station Bharthana, District
Etawah and prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

2. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the revisionist
and Shri Triloki Singh, learned AGA for the State. None is present for the
opposite party no.2. On 23.9.2026 also none appeared for the opposite party
no.2 and the case was listed for today peremptorily.

3. The factual matrix of the case, in short, is that the revisionist no.1 was
married with the opposite party no.2 on 29.11.2011 according to Hindu rites
and rituals and at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given by the
parents of the revisionist no.1 but after sometime the husband and in-laws of
revisionist no.1 started demand of additional dowry and due to non-
fulfillment of the said demands, she was subjected to cruelty and
harassment. Ultimately on 22.3.2013 she was ousted from her matrimonial
house alongwith her milk feeding child. Thereafter, she filed an application
under Section 125 CrPC before the concerned Family Court, which vide
order dated 1.6.2017 directed the opposite party no.2 (husband) to pay Rs.
3,000/- per month to the revisionist no.1 - wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to
the revisionist no.2-son as maintenance. Feeling aggrieved with the said
order, the revisionists moved an application under Section 127 CrPC for
enhancement of the said maintenance amount, and the concerned Court vide
                                                           CRLR No. 3972 of 2023
                                 2


impugned order dated 28.6.2023 enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.
3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- to the revisionist no.1 and from Rs. 1000/- to Rs.
4,000/- to the revisionist no.2. Being not satisfied with the said order, the
revisionists have filed the present criminal revision before this Court.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that this
criminal revision has been filed on the point of quantum of maintenance
payable to the revisionists contending that it is quite meagre considering the
monthly net income of the opposite party No.2 (husband). The averments
have been made on behalf of the revisionists that admittedly opposite party
No.2 is working in Uttar Pradesh Police as a Constable and he is getting
monthly salary more than Rs.55,000/- per month. The trial Court may have
fixed at-least 25 % of the net monthly salary of the opposite party no.2, but it
has awarded maintenance allowance of Rs.5000/- to the revisionist no.1 and
Rs. 4,000/- to her son which is on the lower side. It has also been submitted
that trial Court has not given any reason for fixing aforesaid monthly
maintenance allowance payable to the revisionists. It is also submitted that
since the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order without
considering the evidence on record and without applying judicial mind, the
maintenance amount should be enhanced.

5. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the trial Court has passed the
impugned judgment and order on the basis of oral and documentary
evidence on record and there is no ground to make interference into it. The
trial Court has rightly granted a reasonable maintenance allowance, which is
not liable to be altered.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned
order carefully.

7. The revisionists have filed instant criminal revision for enhancement of
the amount of monthly maintenance allowance on the ground that the trial
court while fixing the amount of monthly maintenance allowance has not
considered the evidence on record, therefore, the said order is illegal and is
liable to be set-aside.

8. The Apex Court has held in paragraph No.9 and 10 of the judgement in
Anju Garg and Another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg: (2022) SCC OnLine
SC 1314 as under :
                                                          CRLR No. 3972 of 2023
                                3


"At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to
ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is
required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements
could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324,
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR 2017
SC 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumar, (1970) 3 SCC 129, has
held that the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to
the paying capacity of the husband.

10. In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy:
(2017) 14 SCC 200, the Apex Court has held that 25% of the husband's net
salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife.
The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the
status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance.

11. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the Family Court had
disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the
husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children.
The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an
able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally
permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai,
2008 (2) SCC 316, it has been 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.

12. In this case, it is not in dispute that the opposite party no.2-husband is
working as constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police and he is getting per month
salary more than Rs. 55,000/-. and he has enough money to maintain his
wife and son. It is also not in dispute that revisionist no.1 is legally wedded
wife of opposite party no. 2 and revisionist no.2 is his minor child. The
object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the
wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the
supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance
awarded to a wife is not a bounty. A wife is also entitled to live with the
befitting standard of husband. It is the duty of a husband to maintain his
wife.
                                                                                            CRLR No. 3972 of 2023
                                                                   4


                                    13. Hence, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect, the order
                                    impugned dated 28.6.2023 is set aside for the aforesaid reasons. The prayer
                                    for enhancement of maintenance allowance made by revisionists is allowed
                                    and the maintenance amount of revisionist no.1 - wife is enhanced from Rs.
                                    5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month and of revisionist no.2 - son is enhanced
                                    from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The opposite party No.2 shall be
                                    bound to provide enhanced maintenance allowance to his wife and son from
                                    today i.e. date of the present judgment. However, it is made clear that the
                                    opposite party no.2 shall pay the maintenance amount to the revisionists as
                                    per the terms and conditions of the impugned order dated 28.6.2023 till
                                    30.9.2026.

                                    14. The present criminal revision is allowed in terms of above mentioned
                                    conditions.

                                    15. The copy of the order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary
                                    compliance, forthwith.

                                    October 1, 2026
                                    safi
                                                                                   (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad