Allahabad High Court

RANGESH KUMAR ALIAS RANGESH SHAHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 12 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The appellate court dismissed the revision, affirming the Family Court’s maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC.

Summary

The revisionist, Rangesh Kumar, challenged a Family Court order that required him to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and three children under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He argued that his wife left voluntarily, he was financially strained due to his father's medical expenses, and therefore maintenance was unwarranted. The respondents contended that the wife and children were living separately because of the husband’s neglect and abuse, and that he was financially capable of providing support. The trial court, relying on evidence of separation, the husband’s earning capacity, and precedent that a husband’s duty to maintain his wife cannot be avoided on the ground of alleged hardship, ordered specific monthly amounts and the appellate court upheld this order. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, leaving the maintenance decree in force.

Issues considered

The husband’s liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite marital separation.
Whether the husband’s claim of financial incapacity and his father’s medical expenses justify reduction or cancellation of maintenance.
Whether the trial court’s assessment of the amount of maintenance is reasonable and in accordance with precedent.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Hindu Marriage Act — s. 9

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
marital separation
husband's duty
family court
revision
Hindu Marriage Act
financial incapacity

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6500 of 2024

Rangesh Kumar Alias Rangesh Shah
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pravesh Kumar Tripathi, Vijendra
Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Maruti
Kumar Tripathi

Court No. - 88
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist, is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 and learned AGA for the State are present.

3. Present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated
29.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in Maintenance Case No.511 of 2018 (Shreya and
others Vs. Rangesh Kumar @ Rangesh Shah), under section 125 Cr.P.C., by
which revisionist was directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month to the opposite
party no.2/wife, Rs.4000/- to the opposite party no.3/daughter till her
marriage, Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party nos.4 and 5/minor sons till
they attained the age of majority, from the date of application i.e. 05.10.2018
to date of order i.e. 29.04.2024. The learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, further directed the revisionist to pay
Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, Rs.5000/- to the
opposite party no.3/daughter till her marriage, Rs.5000/- each to the opposite
party nos.4 and 5/minor sons till they attained the age of majority, from the
date of order onward.
CRLR No. 6500 of 2024
2

4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the
revisionist and the opposite party no.2 solemnized on 21.02.2015. The
opposite party no.2 has a stubborn nature and keeps on taunting the
revisionist and his parents on every small matter. On 07.06.2018 in the
morning, the opposite party no.2 refused to live with the revisionist as his
wife and threatened to commit suicide. On 17.06.2018 the opposite party
no.2 left the house of the revisionist and went to her paternal home without
any reasonable ground at her own sweet will. The revisionist was forced to
file a case, No.1427/2018 (Rangesh Kumar Vs. Shreya), under section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the custody of opposite party no.2. The
opposite party no.2 is not entitled to any maintenance because the revisionist
is willing to keep the opposite party no.2 with him, while the opposite party
is not willing to come. Therefore, there is no justification for providing
maintenance as the claim of opposite party no.2 is completely false and
fabricated, and baseless.

5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist's
total salary of Rs.70,448/- in which he is obtaining only Rs.68,448/-. The
father of the revisionist is suffering from kidney decease and his treatment is
going under S.P.G.I., Lucknow and each and every month revisionist carried
him for treatment and expenses more than Rs.20,000/- per month.

6. Per Contra, the learned counsel of the opposite party nos.2 to 5 submits
that a total of Rs.13,00,000/- was spent by the family of opposite party no.2
in the wedding and on 03.03.2016, opposite party no.2 gave birth to a
daughter i.e. opposite party no.3, upon which the revisionist and his family
began taunting for the birth of a daughter instead of a son. After securing a
job in a government school, the behaviour of the revisionist changed for the
worse and on 07.05.2017, revisionist called police without any reason and
implicated the father of the opposite party no.2 in a false robbery case. On
03.11.2017, opposite party gave birth to twin sons i.e. opposite party nos.4
and 5. The revisionist neglected not only the wife but their children as well.
Opposite party no.2 is a graduate and unemployed woman whereas the
CRLR No. 6500 of 2024
3

revisionist is a government teacher and earns Rs.48,000/- per month and is
fully capable of maintaining the opposite party now.2 to 5.

7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 as well as arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties shows that the learned trial court
allowed the application of the maintenance primarily on the ground that it is
clear from the evidence of the opposite party no.2 that on the birth of a
daughter, due to taunts for the birth of a daughter, the revisionist beating the
opposite party no.2 on different occasions and the opposite party no.2 is
living separately from the revisionist in her maternal home with her three
children since 07.06.2018. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of both the
parties that the opposite party nos.2 to 5 are living separately from the
revisionist for reasonable and sufficient reasons. The revisionist also
admitted that all his brothers are in a government job and the father too
receives the pension and the revisionist also earns enough to maintain the
opposite party nos.2 to 5 and it is his moral responsibility as a husband and a
father. Keeping in view the current inflation, daily expenses, maintenance,
living conditions of the parties and the source of income of the revisionist
and the responsibility of the revisionist for his own maintenance etc., it
would be appropriate to provide maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and
her three children.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v.
State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SSC 636, has held that it is the husband's duty to
maintain his wife. He cannot be allowed to plead that he is unable to earn a
living and is unable to support her due to financial constraints. Keeping in
light the guidelines of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the learned trial
court concerned directed the revisionist to pay Rs.8000/- per month to the
opposite party no.2/wife, Rs.4000/- to the opposite party no.3/daughter till
her marriage, Rs.4000/- each to the opposite party nos.4 and 5/minor sons
till they attained the age of majority, from the date of application i.e.
05.10.2018 to date of order i.e. 29.04.2024. The learned Additional Principal
CRLR No. 6500 of 2024
4

Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, further directed the revisionist
to pay pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife, Rs.5000/-
to the opposite party no.3/daughter till her marriage, Rs.5000/- each to the
opposite party nos.4 and 5/minor sons till they attained the age of majority,
from the date of order onward. The learned trial court impugned order is
very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants no interference by this
Court.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in Maintenance Case No.511 of 2018
(Shreya and others Vs. Rangesh Kumar @ Rangesh Shah), under section 125
Cr.P.C., needs no interference by this Court and the present revision is liable
to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.

May 13, 2026
VKG
(Achal Sachdev,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…