Allahabad High Court
FARUQ KHANversusState of U.P. AND 2 ORS.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY
Holding
The maintenance awarded to the wife is reduced to Rs 4,000 per month, as the original amount was not proportionate to the husband's uncertain income.
Summary
The revisionist Faruq Khan appealed the Family Court's order directing him to pay Rs 5,000 per month to his wife and Rs 1,000 to his son under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He contended that, as a labourer and small farmer with an uncertain income of about Rs 4,000‑5,000 per month, the award was beyond his means. The State argued that he owned 100 bighas of land and could afford the amount, while the wife indicated she would not object to a reduction. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to the husband's actual earning capacity. Consequently, the Court reduced the wife's maintenance to Rs 4,000 per month, leaving the son's amount unchanged, and partially allowed the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance amount of Rs 5,000 per month awarded to the wife under Section 125 CrPC is commensurate with the husband's actual income and financial capacity.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- family law
- revision
- financial capacity
- husband-wife obligations
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 600 of 2019
Faruq Khan
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ravi Shankar Tripathi, Tahir Husain Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ikram Ahmad
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the
revisionist - Faruq Khan with the prayer to set
aside the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal
Misc. Case No. 941 of 2017 (Smt. Gulista and
another vs. Faruq Khan)), under Section
125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Usait, District Budaun whereby
the learned Trial Court directed the revisionist to
pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party
no.2 - wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to the
opposite party no.3-son from the date of order.
2. Heard Sri Tahir Husain Farooqui, learned
counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Kahkashan Bano,
Advocate holding brief for Shri Ikram Ahmad,
learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3,
and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted
that the revisionist is a labourer and earns a
meager amount. Though the revenue records were
produced by the opposite party no.2 before the
trial court but the owner of the maximum land is
his father and mother. The revisionist earns about
Rs.4000/- - Rs. 5,000/- per month and sometimes he
does not earn anything at all, making it extremely
difficult for him to meet even his basic livelihood
CRLR No. 600 of 2019
2
expenses. It is also submitted that the revisionist
is living separately from his other family
members. He is not in a position to give such huge
amount of maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2
and 3 and the court concerned has wrongly assessed
the income of the revisionist while passing the
impugned order. Hence, the maintenance amount
awarded by the trial court to the wife may be
reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-.
4. Though the learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer
and contended that the revisionist earns a handsome
income and he is the owner of 100 bighas of land.
Considering the present inflation, the amount
awarded by the learned Trial Court cannot be said
to be excessive or beyond the capacity of the
revisionist. It is further submitted that the
revision lacks merits and is liable to be
dismissed. However, Ms. Kahkashan Bano, Advocate
holding brief for Shri Ikram Ahmad, learned counsel
for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 states that if the
Court reduces the maintenance amount from Rs.
5,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-, she has no objection.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, and the record of the case including the
impugned order, it is an admitted fact that
opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of
the revisionist. As regards the income of the
revisionist, it is admitted that he is a labourer
and farmer and his income is uncertain. In the
absence of any reliable material showing a fixed or
stable income, and keeping in view the principles
laid down by 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, the amount of maintenance must be reasonable
CRLR No. 600 of 2019
3
and proportionate to the paying capacity of the
husband. The learned counsel for the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 has also submitted that if the Court
reduces the maintenance amount, she has no
objection.
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the
opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/-
per month awarded to opposite party no. 2 from the
date of the judgment is not commensurate with the
uncertain and fluctuating income of the
revisionist. It is true that it is the legal
obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, but
the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and
within his financial capacity. Therefore, the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court appears to
be on hire side to some extent and deserves to be
modified. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance is
reduced to Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite
party no.2 - wife from the date of the judgment.
The maintenance amount awarded to the opposite
party no.3-son is not interfered with.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is
partly allowed. The amount of maintenance is
reduced from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 4,000/-
per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date
of the judgment.
October 1, 2026
safi
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…