SHYAM MANOHAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7851 of 2025

Shyam Manohar Gupta
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Saurabh Sachan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Padmaker Pandey

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

1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Sachan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned
A.G.A. 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 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 96 of 2019 (Smt.
Anita Gupta vs. Shyam Manohar Gupta), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance allowances of
Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 (wife) from the date of filing of
the application.

3. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the revisionist and
opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 25.02.1988 according to Hindu rites
and rituals. From their wedlock, two children were born, namely Sonal
Gupta and Yash Gupta, who are now major. Thereafter, on account of
cruelty allegedly committed by opposite party no. 2, the revisionist filed a
divorce petition on 27.05.2005 before the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the
husband on the ground of persistent cruelty by the wife. Against the said
order dated 27.05.2005, opposite party no. 2 preferred an appeal, which was
subsequently withdrawn by order dated 08.04.2008.

4. On 22.12.2007, a settlement agreement was arrived at between the parties,
wherein the revisionist agreed to bear the expenses of maintenance of his
divorced wife along with the children, including educational, medical, and
                                                          CRLR No. 7851 of 2025
                                2


other expenses. In pursuance of the said settlement, a registered partnership
deed dated 01.04.2008 was executed between the revisionist, opposite party
no. 2, and the second wife of the revisionist. The said partnership deed was
filed by opposite party no. 2 as List No. 18. A partnership firm styled as M/s
Ram Lal & Sons, 14-B, Collector Ganj, Kanpur Nagar, was constituted to
run a food grain business, in which equal shares were distributed among the
three partners.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that after the decree of
divorce dated 27.05.2005, opposite party no. 2 started living separately from
the revisionist. Thereafter, a compromise settlement was arrived at between
them, and no claim for maintenance was raised by opposite party no. 2 at
that time. Subsequently, in the year 2025, she filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the trial court, directing the
revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to
opposite party no. 2.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite
party no. 2 is capable of maintaining herself. For a long period after the
divorce, she has been maintaining herself by running the food grain business
as a partner holding a one-third share, and the partnership deed is on record
at page 92.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the partnership
deed clearly shows that the business of food grains is being run jointly by
three partners, each having an equal one-third share in the profits. The shop
is being managed by opposite party no. 2 with the assistance of her son. It is
contended that the main source of income of the family is the said food grain
shop, and all partners earn equal profits therefrom, thereby enjoying equal
status and financial benefits. In such circumstances, there is no occasion to
grant maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that
the maintenance amount awarded in her favour cannot be said to be
excessive. He does not dispute the existence of the partnership deed among
the three partners, each having a one-third share. It is further submitted that
merely because opposite party no. 2 is a partner in the said firm, her claim
for maintenance cannot be denied, particularly when she has not remarried
after the divorce from the revisionist.
                                                           CRLR No. 7851 of 2025
                                 3


9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on
record, it is an admitted position that after the decree of divorce, a settlement
was entered into between the parties on 22.12.2007. In furtherance of the
said settlement, a registered partnership deed dated 01.04.2008 was executed
between the revisionist, opposite party no. 2, and the second wife of the
revisionist for carrying on the business of food grains under the name and
style of M/s Ram Lal & Sons, 14-B, Collector Ganj, Kanpur Nagar.

10. From a perusal of the partnership deed placed on record, it is evident that
all three partners hold equal shares in the firm and are entitled to one-third
share each in the profits of the business. There is no material available on
record to show that opposite party no. 2 has been excluded from the business
or deprived of her share in the profits. On the contrary, it has come on record
that the shop is being run by opposite party no. 2 with the assistance of her
son, and the business constitutes the primary source of income for the
family.

11. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice enacted to prevent
destitution and vagrancy by providing maintenance to a wife who is unable
to maintain herself. The essential condition for grant of maintenance is that
the wife must be unable to maintain herself. If it is established that she has
sufficient independent income to maintain herself, she would not be entitled
to claim maintenance from her former husband.

12. In the present case, opposite party no. 2 is a partner having an equal one-
third share in a running food grain business. When three partners are equally
sharing the profits of a commercial establishment, it necessarily follows that
each partner is entitled to an equal proportion of the income generated
therefrom. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the business is non-
functional or that the income derived therefrom is insufficient for her
sustenance.

13. The contention of the revisionist that opposite party no. 2 is financially
independent and capable of maintaining herself, therefore, merits
consideration. Once it is admitted that she is enjoying equal profits and
status in the partnership firm, the foundational requirement under Section
125 Cr.P.C.—namely, inability to maintain herself—stands unfulfilled. The
object of maintenance proceedings is not to create an additional source of
income for a spouse who is already financially self-sufficient.
                                                          CRLR No. 7851 of 2025
                                4


14. In view of the admitted equal profit-sharing arrangement and absence of
any material to establish financial incapacity of opposite party no. 2, this
Court is of the considered opinion that she cannot be said to be unable to
maintain herself. Consequently, she is not entitled to claim maintenance
from the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

15. It is further noteworthy that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by opposite party no. 2 after an inordinate delay of about
fourteen years from the date of divorce. During this long intervening period,
there is nothing on record to indicate that she ever approached any court
seeking maintenance or that she was unable to sustain herself. The prolonged
silence and absence of any earlier claim prima facie indicate that she was
maintaining herself independently. The material brought on record further
reflects that opposite party no. 2 has been actively engaged in running the
food grain shop established under the registered partnership deed dated
01.04.2008. It has also come on record that the said business is being
managed by her with the assistance of her son, and she is deriving income
therefrom as a one-third partner. There is no evidence to suggest that the
business is defunct or that she is not receiving her legitimate share in the
profits.

16. It further appears that the learned trial court has failed to consider all
material aspects of the matter in their proper perspective. The existence of a
registered partnership deed, the admitted one-third equal share of opposite
party no. 2 in the running food grain business, the fact that she has been
managing the said business with the assistance of her son, and the long delay
of about fourteen years in filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
have not been adequately appreciated while passing the impugned order.

17. The trial court was under a legal obligation to examine whether opposite
party no. 2 was, in fact, unable to maintain herself, which is the sine qua non
for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, without
recording any specific finding regarding her actual income from the
partnership firm or her financial incapacity, the maintenance has been
awarded in a mechanical manner.

18. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned order suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and lack
of proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the order passed by the
                                                                                                CRLR No. 7851 of 2025
                                                                      5


                                    learned trial court cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

                                    19. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, and considering that
                                    opposite party no. 2 is a one-third partner in a running food grain business,
                                    earning equal profits and managing the shop with the assistance of her son,
                                    coupled with the fact that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was
                                    filed after an inordinate delay of about fourteen years from the date of
                                    divorce, this Court finds that she has failed to establish that she is unable to
                                    maintain herself.

                                    20. The essential requirement under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being absent, no
                                    interference is warranted in favour of opposite party no. 2. The impugned
                                    order does not merit sustenance in the eyes of law.

                                    21. Accordingly, the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned
                                    Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 96 of
                                    2019 is hereby set aside.

                                    22. The criminal revision stands allowed.

                                    February 25, 2026
                                    Akbar
                                                                                             (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad