Allahabad High Court

RAJ KUMAR MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 11 March 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The High Court held that the Family Court’s order of Rs 25,000 per month is reasonable and not excessive, and therefore the revision is dismissed.

Summary

The revisionist, Raj Kumar Maurya, appealed against a Family Court order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code that required him to pay Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance for his minor son. He argued that his wife, who also earns a substantial salary, should share the maintenance burden and that the amount was excessive. The respondent contended that the child’s education and other expenses justified the amount and that the order was within the father’s financial capacity. The High Court noted the Supreme Court’s principle that both parents share responsibility when both are earning, but found that the Family Court had duly considered the child’s needs and the parties’ incomes. Consequently, the Court held the Rs 25,000 order reasonable, found no error in the lower court’s decision, and dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

Whether the maintenance amount of Rs 25,000 per month is excessive given both parents’ earning capacities.
Whether the Family Court erred by not adequately factoring the wife’s income in fixing maintenance.
Whether the revision court should alter or set aside the Family Court’s maintenance order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
joint parental responsibility
minor child
revision
family court
income assessment
educational expenses
inflation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6097 of 2025

Raj Kumar Maurya
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, Kiran Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satendra Singh, Ullas Mishra

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

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
revisionist, Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.
2, and the learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking
to set aside the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj, in Maintenance
Case No. 622 of 2015 (Chaitanya Arav (Minor) vs. Raj Kumar) under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Trial Court directed the
revisionist to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 25,000/- per month to
opposite party no. 2 (minor son) from the date of the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that despite sincere
efforts, the wife of the revisionist refused to return to the matrimonial
home and has deserted the revisionist without any justifiable reason. It
was further submitted that the wife of the revisionist is also working as
a Cashier in a bank, is financially sound, and is equally responsible for
maintaining the minor son.

4. It was argued that the revisionist is a Sub-Divisional Officer in
B.S.N.L. and is earning approximately Rs. 1,21,000/- per month. In
contrast, the wife of the revisionist is also a Cashier in a bank and earns
approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month. It was urged that the learned
Family Court failed to consider the income and earning capacity of
both parents and wrongly placed the entire burden of maintenance
upon the revisionist.
CRLR No. 6097 of 2025
2

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandu
Sridevi vs. Chandu Sesha Rao, Civil Appeal No. 1159 of 2023
arising out of SLP (C) No. 26395 of 2019, wherein it has been
observed that where both the husband and wife are earning, they share
a joint responsibility to maintain their children and the quantum of
maintenance must be fixed keeping in view the ground realities.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the
revision and submitted that opposite party no. 2 is aged about 16 years,
studying in Class XI at City Montessori School and is also receiving
coaching at Allen Career Institute, for which approximately Rs.
30,000/- per month is required to be deposited as fees. It is further
submitted that the payment receipts showing month-wise deposit of
fees are available on record. Apart from the said educational expenses,
expenditure towards food, lodging, medical treatment, travelling and
other day-to-day requirements of the minor child are also required to
be incurred. Considering the present cost of education and prevailing
inflation, the learned Trial Court, after considering all aspects of the
matter, has allowed the application of the minor son and the amount
awarded is neither excessive nor beyond the financial capacity of the
revisionist.

7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and has perused the material available on record.
The employment and income of the wife of the revisionist is an
admitted fact. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Chandu Sridevi (supra), both parents have a shared
responsibility to maintain their children.

8. This Court further finds that the learned Family Court, while
determining the maintenance allowance, has considered all relevant
aspects of the matter. The minor child is pursuing his education and
coaching, which requires substantial expenditure. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that an
amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be sufficient for the overall
maintenance and educational needs of the minor son. Apart from
educational expenses, other expenses relating to food, lodging, medical
needs, travelling and day-to-day requirements are also required to be
CRLR No. 6097 of 2025
3

incurred. However, considering that both parents are earning and have
a shared responsibility towards the maintenance of the minor child, the
amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month directed to be paid by the revisionist
by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be excessive or
unreasonable. Keeping in view the status of the parties, the needs of the
minor child and the prevailing inflation, the said amount appears to be
reasonable and realistic for the proper maintenance and education of
the minor child.

9. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or
perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court
warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.

March 12, 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…