Allahabad High Court

NARESH VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The maintenance award must be reasonable and proportionate to the husband’s net income; consequently, the amount was reduced to Rs 7,500 per month (approximately 25 % of net income).

Summary

The revisionist Naresh Verma challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He claimed his income was only Rs 10,000 per month from work in a jewellery shop that he does not own, arguing the amount was excessive. The opposite party produced photographs asserting ownership of the shop and contended the trial court had properly considered the husband’s earning capacity. The High Court noted that the wife was unable to maintain herself and that the trial court’s findings on fact were not perverse, but found no evidence that the husband owned the shop and estimated his earning potential at Rs 30,000 per month. Applying Supreme Court precedent that maintenance should be about 25 % of net income, the Court held the Rs 10,000 award excessive and reduced it to Rs 7,500 per month, partially allowing the revision. The order was modified accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 per month awarded by the trial court is excessive in view of the husband’s actual income.
Whether the trial court erred by not considering evidence of ownership of the jewellery shop.
Whether the revisional court can modify a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order on the basis of the husband’s earning capacity.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125

Subjects

Section 125 Cr.P.C.
maintenance
criminal revision
husband-wife
income assessment
excessive maintenance
modification of order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5390 of 2025

Naresh Verma
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Muhammad Sarik Husain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Yadvendra Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken
on record.

2. Heard Sri Muhammad Sarik Husain, learned counsel for the
revisionist, Sri Yadvendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.
2, and learned AGA, and perused the material available on record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to
set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.06.2025 passed by
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Case No. 884 of 2022
(Smt. Preeti Verma vs. Naresh Verma) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per
month to opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance from the date
of the application.

4. The sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the
revisionist is working in a jewellery shop and earning Rs. 10,000/- per
month. It is further submitted that the shop for repairing ornaments
does not belong to the revisionist. The trial court allowed the
application filed by opposite party no. 2 without considering the
income of the revisionist and awarded an excessive amount of
maintenance.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, as well as learned AGA, have
opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended that the shop is owned by
the revisionist. In this regard, photographs of the shop along with the
CRLR No. 5390 of 2025
2

revisionist has been filed as Annexure No. C.A.-1. It is further
submitted that the trial court, after considering all aspects of the matter,
granted the maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no. 2,
which cannot be said to be excessive or beyond his capacity. Hence,
the revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, as well as the perusal of the
record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it is an admitted
fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the
revisionist. So far as the separate living of opposite party no. 2 is
concerned, the trial court has recorded a categorical finding that she is
living separately due to neglect on the part of the revisionist. There is
nothing on record to show the income of opposite party no. 2;
therefore, she is unable to maintain herself. The findings recorded by
the trial court are findings of fact, and this Court, being a revisional
court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own findings
unless the findings recorded are perverse or contrary to facts and law.

7. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, he is working in a
jewellery shop and repairing ornaments. It is alleged that the revisionist
is the owner of the shop; however, there is no evidence on record to
establish that the revisionist is the owner of the said shop.

8. Since the revisionist has not claimed any physical deformity, this Court
presumes that he is an able-bodied person and, therefore, cannot shirk
his pious obligation to maintain his wife. In the cases of Rajnesh vs.
Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs.
Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383; and
Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that maintenance must be reasonable and
realistic, avoiding both extremes neither so extravagant as to be
oppressive nor so meagre as to drive the wife to penury.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the revisionist is
assumed to be a skilled labourer, he can earn Rs. 1,000/- per day,
which comes to Rs. 30,000/- per month. Keeping in view the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, maintenance can be
granted to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband, which
CRLR No. 5390 of 2025
3

comes to Rs. 7,500/-.

10. Thus, in view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the
maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the trial court is not
commensurate with the income of the revisionist. It is true that it is the
legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, but the amount
should be commensurate with his income. Hence, the maintenance
awarded by the trial court seems to be excessive and deserves to be
modified. Accordingly, it is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 7,500/-
per month payable to opposite party no. 2 from the date of application.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed.

March 18, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…