AKASH NAYAKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7307 of 2025

Akash Nayak
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                  :   Amrit Shanker Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A., Irshad Saifi

Court No. - 87
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr.
Irshad Saifi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A.
representing the State and perused the material available on record.

2. Revisionist Akash Nayak has approached this Court by means of present
Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed
by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah (hereinafter referred to as "the
Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 466 of 2022, Shikha v. Akash
Nayak, whereby the Trial Court partly allowed the application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2 and ordered the revisionist to
pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the
date of filing of the application.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present Criminal Revision
has been filed, inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned order has been
passed without due application of judicial mind and merely on the basis of
conjectures and surmises. It is further contended that the impugned order has
been passed arbitrarily, without due consideration of the material available
on record. The Trial Court, without properly considering the income of
opposite party no. 2, has erroneously determined the quantum of
maintenance and thereby committed an error of law. It is, therefore, prayed
that the impugned order be set aside and the present Criminal Revision be
allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was
earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month by working at a shop owned by his joint
family. It is pointed out that, as recorded in the judgment of the Trial Court
at page 13 of the paper book, the revisionist deposed that his brother,
                                                           CRLR No. 7307 of 2025
                                 2


Upendra Nayak, works in the said shop along with their father and earns Rs.
10,000/- per month. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the revisionist
was also earning a similar amount from the said business. However, on
account of several criminal and matrimonial cases instituted against the
revisionist and his family members, his father ousted him from the family
shop and business. At present, the revisionist is residing with his grandfather
at Agra and assisting him in agricultural activities. It is submitted that the
revisionist is presently sustaining himself with the support and blessings of
his grandfather. It is, thus, contended that, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the present Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed and the
impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. representing the State and learned counsel for
opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the revision and supported the
impugned judgment and order. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
submitted that though the revisionist, in his statement, disclosed the income
of his brother but did not disclose his own income, either in the affidavit
filed in compliance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh v. Neha and another or in his examination-in-chief or cross-
examination. It is further submitted that the revisionist has also not denied
that he is an income-tax assessee, which indicates that he has taxable
income. Learned counsel further submitted that, even under the earlier
income-tax regime, a person having annual income upto 2,50,000/-, was not
taxable, whereas under the prevailing income-tax regime, an individual
having income up to Rs. 12 lakhs per annum may, subject to the applicable
provisions and rebates, have no tax liability. It is, therefore, contended that
the Trial Court, after considering the material available on record and the
conduct of the revisionist in not disclosing his income, rightly assessed his
income and fixed the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- per month. It
is thus contended that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
present Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed by
this Court.

6. When confronted with above, learned counsel for the revisionist could not
overcome the same.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the material
available on record. The object of maintenance is to prevent destitution and
ensure that the dependent spouse and children are able to live with dignity.
From a careful examination of the impugned order, it transpires that the Trial
Court has considered the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced by
                                                                                            CRLR No. 7307 of 2025
                                                                        3

                                    them and the attending circumstances before determining the income of the
                                    revisionist and fixing the quantum of maintenance. The findings recorded by
                                    the Trial Court are based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to
                                    be arbitrary, illegal or perverse. No jurisdictional error or material
                                    irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned order. The findings
                                    recorded by the Trial Court are based on the material available on record as
                                    well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court and do not suffer from any
                                    infirmity requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional
                                    jurisdiction. This submissions urged by the learned counsel for opposite
                                    party no. 2 clearly borne out from the record. The revisionist has tried to
                                    conceal his income by non disclosure his income. Therefore, he is not
                                    entitled for any relief from this Court in the present matter. The present
                                    Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

                                    8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Brijesh Maurya
                                                                                    (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




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