OMBIR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6716 of 2025

Ombir Singh
                                                .....Revisionist(s)
                             Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                   .....Opposite
                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Jai Singh Parihar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishna Dutt Awasthi

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

1. Heard Shri J.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the revisionist,
Sri K.D. Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2,
learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist
seeking to set aside the order dated 08-09-2025 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, in
Maintenance Case No. 156 of 2023, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
whereby the learned trial court directed the revisionist to pay
Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of
the application.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the
maintenance amount awarded by the learned trial court is
excessive and disproportionate to his income. He further
submits that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party
no. 2 was performed without any demand for dowry and that
no harassment was ever caused by the revisionist to opposite
party no. 2. It is further submitted that the revisionist is a
retired employee of the Indian Army and is receiving a
monthly pension of Rs. 31,000/-, having no other source of
income. He has other family liabilities to discharge; therefore,
the amount awarded by the learned trial court is beyond his
financial capacity and deserves to be reduced. Lastly, it is
                                                  CRLR No. 6716 of 2025
                          2


submitted that after filing of the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C., opposite party no. 2 withdrew Rs. 6 lakh from the joint
account without any information to the revisionist, and the
same ought to be duly adjusted while determining
maintenance.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
submitted that, keeping in view the present scenario and the
cost of living, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded by
the trial court cannot be considered excessive. Hence, the
impugned order passed by the trial court does not call for
interference by this Court.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as
well as the learned A.G.A., it is an admitted fact that opposite
party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. So far
as the income of the revisionist is concerned, he is a retired
employee of the Indian Army and is receiving a monthly
pension of Rs. 31,000/-. Keeping in view the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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, it has been held
that maintenance may be granted up to the extent of 25% of the
husband’s net income. Accordingly, 25% of Rs. 31,000/-
comes to Rs. 7,750/- per month, which is higher than the
amount awarded by the learned trial court. Further, while
deciding Issue Nos. 2 and 3, it has come on record that
opposite party no. 2 has herself admitted that she withdrew Rs.
6 lakhs from the joint account without informing the
revisionist, on account of the illness of her father.

6. The revisionist, being an able-bodied person, cannot shirk
his legal obligation to maintain his wife. The maintenance of
Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded by the trial court cannot be said
to be excessive. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial
                                                                                             CRLR No. 6716 of 2025
                                                                  3


                                        court does not warrant interference by this Court.

                                        7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.

                                        8. However, since it is admitted by opposite party no. 2 that she
                                        had withdrawn Rs. 6 lakhs from the joint account without
                                        informing the revisionist during the pendency of the
                                        application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the same shall be given
                                        due adjustment in the amount awarded by the trial court.


                                        March 18, 2026
                                        pks

                                                                                  (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad