Allahabad High Court

GAURAV KUMAR YADAVversusState of UP AND 2 Others

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The revision is dismissed and the Family Court’s maintenance order is upheld.

Summary

The revisionist, Gaurav Kumar Yadav, challenged a Family Court order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that directed him to pay Rs.5,000 per month to his wife and Rs.7,000 per month to his daughter. He contended that his income was limited to Rs.14,000 per month after resigning from a bank job and that the maintenance amounts were excessive. The opposite parties argued that the husband was capable of earning a higher income, citing his previous salary and agricultural earnings, and highlighted instances of alleged cruelty and abandonment. The trial court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi, emphasizing that maintenance should enable a simple but not penurious life, and upheld the order. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s reasoning, noting the husband’s failure to file an affidavit on his finances and the applicability of the Rajnesh v. Neha precedent, and dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. given the husband’s alleged income?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court’s maintenance order?
Whether the husband’s failure to submit an income affidavit warrants upholding the trial court’s order?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125, 151

Subjects

Section 125 Cr.P.C.
maintenance
family law
revision
marital cruelty
income assessment
child maintenance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 847 of 2024

Gaurav Kumar Yadav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shivam Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 & 3, is taken
on record.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party
nos.2 & 3 and learned AGA for the State are present.

3. The present criminal revision is being preferred by the revisionist against
the judgment and order dated 25.01.2024, passed by learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court No.5, Ghaziabad, in Case No.744 of 2018
(Smt. Alka Yadav and Another Vs. Gaurav Kumar Yadav), under section
125 Cr.P.C, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month
to the opposite party no.2/wife from the date of application i.e. 28.09.2018
and Rs.7000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/daughter, from the date
of application till her attaining the age of majority.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the
revisionist and the opposite party no.2 solemnized on 18.02.2010 in
accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. The revisionist denied all
allegations of cruelty. He contended that the opposite party no.2's suspicion
regarding second marriage of revisionist was baseless. Revisionist claimed
that due to the ongoing litigation, he had to resign from his bank job in
January 2019 and is currently employed as a Sales Executive at AG
Financial Services in Ludhiana, Punjab, earning a meager salary of
CRLR No. 847 of 2024
2

Rs.14,000/- per month. The opposite party no.2 is highly educated (M.A.,
B.Ed.) and earns Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month by conducting private
tuitions, which she spends on her own whims and owns a car. They had been
living in a rented house in Ghaziabad for which he paid the rent and the
revisionist was directly funding opposite party no.3's school fees, uniform,
and books without any financial support of the opposite party no.2.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3
vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel of the
revisionist and submit that the father of the opposite party no.2 spent around
Rs.15,00,000/- in the marriage. After the marriage, the revisionist's behavior
became cruel and fighting became his habit. He also had a second marriage a
woman named Babita Rawat, which led him to desert and stop maintaining
his wife and daughter. An assault on 04.07.2018, led to a police complaint
(under Section 151 Cr.P.C.) and another assault on 06.06.2017 was reported
on 07.06.2017 in Mahila Thana. Opposite party nos.2 &3 currently resides in
a rented flat in Ghaziabad with the parents of opposite party no.2. The
opposite party no.2 is a homemaker with no independent source of income.
Revisionist worked as an ARM Manager at Indus Bank, Greater Noida,
earning a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month and an additional income of
Rs.10,000/- per month from flat rental income, approximately Rs.50,000/-
per month from 60 Bighas of agricultural land totaling the monthly income
to Rs.1,10,000/- per month.

6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 shows that the learned
trial court concerned allowed the application under section 125 C.r.P.C.
moved by the opposite party no.2/wife, primarily on the ground that the
revisionist is an able-bodied man capable of earning. The learned trial court
concerned placed reliance on the judgment Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi AIR 1
075 SC 83, where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court should ensure
that the amount of maintenance is sufficient to enable the wife to live a
simple life, neither luxurious nor penurious. Even by his own admission of
earning Rs.14,000/- per month, he is fully capable of providing maintenance
CRLR No. 847 of 2024
3

to the opposite party nos.2 & 3. Furthermore, the record showed that since
2018, the revisionist/husband only paid partial maintenance when explicitly
directed by the trial court, establishing clear neglect on his part. In light of
the findings and adhering to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court
in the case of Bhagwan V. Kamla Devi(Supra), the learned trial court
concerned ruled that the opposite party nos.2 & 3 are legally entitled to
standard maintenance corresponding to the husband's socioeconomic
standing and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the
opposite party no.2/wife from the date of application i.e. 28.09.2018 and
Rs.7000/- per month to the opposite party no.3/daughter, from the date of
application till her attaining the age of majority. The revisionist has not filed
any affidavit regarding his source of income and liabilities, in the light of the
order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha, (2021) 2
SCC 324. Therefore, the learned trial court impugned order is very well
reasoned and justified and warrants no interference by this Court.

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
dated 25.01.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court No.5, Ghaziabad, in Case No.744 of 2018 (Smt. Alka Yadav and
Another Vs. Gaurav Kumar Yadav), under section 125 Cr.P.C, needs no
interference by this Court and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.

May 14, 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…