MOHAMAMD RASHIDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7472 of 2025

Mohamamd Rashid
                                                         .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)          :   Ankit Agarval
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   Bijay Kumar Srivastava, G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA
representing State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

2. Even though the name of Mr. Bijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate is
duly published in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no. 2 but
neither he nor anyone on his behalf is present to oppose the present
criminal revision.

3. Revisionist Mohd. Rashid has approached this Court by means of
present Criminal Revision assailing the impugned judgment and order
dated 21.05.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.
3, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Maintenance
Case No. 1113 of 2021, Smt. Muskan and another Vs. Mohammad Rashid
under section 125 of Cr.P.C., P.S. Agota, District Bulanshahr wherein the
trial court allowing the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and fastened the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/-
to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3 as monthly
maintenance from the date of institution of application for maintenance.

4. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has
been filed on the grounds that impugned judgment and order has been
passed without considering the material available on record, without
considering the actual financial condition of the parties, it based on
surmises and conjectures and a prayer for setting aside the impugned
judgment and order and allowing the present criminal revision has been
                                                         CRLR No. 7472 of 2025
                                2


made.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that, in the concluding
part of paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment, the trial court has
observed that the revisionist is a healthy young man, earns his livelihood
through labour and business of meat, so he is capable of maintaining his
wife and child. It is submitted that, on the basis of the aforesaid
observation, the trial court fixed the amount of maintenance, without
properly ascertaining the actual income of the revisionist. Learned
counsel further submitted that, in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that, before fixing the amount of
maintenance, the Court must ascertain the actual or notional income of the
husband. However, in the present case, the trial court failed to do so. It is,
thus, contended that, in view of the above, the present criminal revision
deserves to be allowed by this Court.

6. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the present criminal
revision and submitted that the legal requirement of ascertaining the
actual income of husband before fixing the maintenance amount is
mandatory where the maintenance amount seems to be excessive. The
present maintenance amount is too meager to maintain two persons in
dignified manner. The said amount seems to be insufficient to fulfil the
basic needs of two persons even at government standard. In aforesaid
conspectus, any interference by this Court in impugned judgment and
order will cost serious injustice to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is thus
contended that the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is
liable to be dismissed by this Court.

7. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that, while
fixing the amount of maintenance, the Court must remain attentive of the
actual economic condition of the parties. If the Court fixed an amount of
maintenance which is excessive having regard to the basic needs and
reasonable requirements of a person in whose favour such maintenance is
awarded, the said amount of maintenance must necessarily be determined
by keeping in view the comparative living standards of the parties. But
where the amount of maintenance awarded is too meagre to maintain the
                                                                                         CRLR No. 7472 of 2025
                                                                 3


                                    claimants in other words if the maintenance amount is a minimum such
                                    amount cannot be challenged by husband only on the basis of non
                                    ascertaining the actual or notional income of the husband.

                                    8. In view of the above, we do not find any good or sufficient ground to
                                    interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the present
                                    criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.



                                                                                 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Arti




Digitally signed by :-
ARTI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad