Allahabad High Court
SUNEHRI SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The maintenance award of Rs 5,000 per month is reasonable and in line with Supreme Court guidelines, so the revision is dismissed.
Summary
Sunehri Singh appealed to the Allahabad High Court against a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance for his two minor daughters under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He contended that the amount was excessive, asserting that his income from tuition work was modest and that the trial court had assessed his earnings without documentary proof. The State opposed, stating that the father runs a coaching centre and earns over Rs 1 lakh monthly, but also admitted no evidence was produced. The High Court noted that the father's exact income could not be ascertained, but, based on his admission of earning at least Rs 20,000 a month, applied the Supreme Court guideline that maintenance may be up to 25% of net income, which equals Rs 5,000. Consequently, the Court held the award reasonable, found no illegality in the trial court’s order, and dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance amount of Rs 5,000 per month is excessive in view of the father's actual income.
- Whether the trial court erred in fixing maintenance without documentary evidence of income.
- Whether the revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 397, 401
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- revision
- family law
- income assessment
- minor children
- Supreme Court guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6029 of 2025
Sunehri Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shiv Shankar Sachan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist in the Court today is
taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2025
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 836 of 2023 (Kumari Harshita Singh & Another Vs. Sunahari Singh),
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur,
whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 through their natural
mother, namely, Deepa Singh, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,500/-
per month each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 towards monthly maintenance
allowance from the date of filing of instant application i.e. total Rs. 5,000/- per
month.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are the real
minor daughters of the revisionist.
5. The sole and solitary contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is
that the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under
the impugned judgment in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the tune of
total Rs. 5,000/- per month in total from the date of filing of application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is too excessive and exorbitant and not commensurate
with the net income of the revisionist as he takes tuition door to door and he
somehow earns some money for his livelihood. He then submits that trial
court, without any documentary evidence, has only on the basis of oral
CRLR No. 6029 of 2025
2
averments made before the trial court that the revisionist is running a coaching
centre and earns Rs. 1 Lakh per month, has assessed wrong monthly income
of the revisionist and has awarded the monthly maintenance allowance in
favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 under the impugned judgment, which is
not correct in the eyes of law.
6. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that since
the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by the trial court under the
impugned judgment is too excessive and exorbitant and is not in accordance
with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other-hand, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that
the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the
impugned judgment and awarding total Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of instant application, so as
to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. Besides the above, learned A.G.A. submits that the revisionist is running a
coaching cetnre and is receiving more than Rs. 1 Lakh per month, therefore,
he is able to maintain his children i.e. opposite party nos.2 and 3. However,
no documentary evidence has been led before the trial court from any side
qua the aforesaid income of the revisionist.
9. Except the above issue, neither the learned counsel for the revisionist nor
the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned A.G.A.
have stated anything else on any other issue.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the
impugned judgment, this Court finds that it is an admitted case that the
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are real minor daughters of the revisionist and as
per the settled law, the revisionist cannot shirk from his pious liabilities for
maintaining his children.
11. So far as the monthly income of the revisionist is concerned, this Court
may record that no documentary evidence has been adduced during the
course of trial that the revisionist works as fitter of aluminum glass, from which
he receives handsome money. Without any documentary evidence available
on record, the exact monthly income of the revisionist cannot be ascertained.
Before the trial court the revisionist has admitted himself that he takes tuition
from which he earns some money. As such, looking to the present scenario,
cost of everything, this Court is constrained to assume that the revisionist
CRLR No. 6029 of 2025
3
being an educated person, earns more than Rs. 20,000/- per month by taking
tuition.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari
reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, has observed that the maintenance allowances
can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband.
The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and
avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should
neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the
respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the children to penury.
13. Keeping in view the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr)
(Supras), this court is of the considered opinion that the amount of
maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is already in lower side as per
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and
25% of Rs. 20,000/- per month would be Rs. 5,000/- per month. As such, total
Rs. 5,000/- towards total monthly maintenance allowance as awarded in
favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is just reasonable and realistic.
14. Consequently, this Court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order passed by the trial court partly allowing the application of
opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to warrant any
interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
15. The present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
March 19, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…