HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4650 of 2024 AFR Court No. - 86 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in the court, is taken on record 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 5.6.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Agra, by which claim of the revisionist for maintenance has been rejected, whereas the son of revisionist and opposite party No. 2 namely, Master Kavya has been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month from the date of application, till he attains majority. 3. Learned counsel for the for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is an unemployed lady, having no source of income and is surviving on the income of her parents. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is having diploma in the B. Pharma but is not serving anywhere on the basis of the said certificate of B. Pharma. 4. Learned counsel also submitted that learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court had dismissed the claim of the revisionist on the ground that the revisionist is an income tax payee and, therefore, generates sufficient income for survival and further submitted that the said income, which is being generated by getting interest from the fixed deposit receipts, are in the joint name of the husband and wife, i.e., revisionist and opposite party No. 2 and the said FDR was made from the financial resources of the father of the revisionist just after 10-15 days of the marriage, which was considered to be Stridhan and therefore, if any interest is generated on annual basis from the said FDR, the same cannot be treated to be source of income for any Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prakash Chandra Srivastava, Vishnu Prakash, Mamta Maurya, Ram Yash Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sujan Singh Smt Archana .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) individual, unless and until the individual herself or himself generates the said income either by way of securing employment or service or business etc. but merely because substantial amount has been fixed as FDR and some interest is being generated from the said FDR, cannot be categorized as income. Moreover, it has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the said FDR was made from the financial resources of the father of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that there is a joint bank account operated by husband and wife, but the same has become dormant due to non transaction for substantial period. Learned counsel further submitted that the presumption of the learned Family Court that the interest accrued on the FDR is the source of income, cannot be sustained in the eye of law unless and until there is a separate identified and qualified income from any other source, such as salary, business etc. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that opposite party No. 2 is Senior Branch Manager in Punjab National Bank posted in Tamilnadu and therefore, the income of opposite party No. 2 is clear, unambiguous and quantified, thus, there cannot be any dispute or ambiguity, as far as the salary of an individual is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that the findings arrived at by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court are perverse and contrary to the record. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the findings arrived at by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court are in accordance with law, as much as the interest, which is being generated on yearly basis, is the part of the income and therefore, the same cannot be discarded, while calculating the income of the revisionist from different sources. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 further submitted that the revisionist is a qualified lady and is capable of generating income from the degree, which she is having at her end. Learned counsel further submitted that the father of the revisionist is also running business in its premises, who is residing at the first floor and is having shops at the ground floor and therefore, is having sufficient income and further submitted that the revisionist also contributes in the said business of father and is also having joint account in the name of her mother, which is being operated by none other than the revisionist, as the mother of the revisionist is not that much qualified to operate the bank account. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that it can be seen that if a person is having F. D. R., in the instant case the F. D. R. of Rs. 14,00,000/- was purportedly gifted by the father of the revisionist, but was disputed that the same was gifted by the husband of the revisionist at the CRLR No. 4650 of 2024 2 time of marriage and therefore a conclusion can be drawn that any father would like to gift her daughter anything, which is beneficial for her future and it has also come on record and it is admitted position that, father of the revisionist is having sufficient income. The allegation that the husband gave Rs. 14,00,000/- to the revisionist for the said F. D. R., is not supported by any documentary evidence, such as transfer of the money from one account to another account. However, considering the fact that some income is generated from the interest accrued on the F. D. R., is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the revisionist is having sufficient source of income. It is settled law that the source of income can only be considered real and substantial to the extent that any person is either serving somewhere and getting salary in lieu thereof or is having business at his or her end to generate the said income, such business could be either by any firm, company or trade etc. but mere getting interest on deposits, cannot be considered as source of income. the F. D. R. is in the form of a financial security to meet out any unforeseen expenditure or to develop the sufficient means of living, such as, accommodation, building a house or to start with a small business, when all other sources have either failed or have come to an end. Therefore, the findings arrived at by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra are erroneous. 8. Under the circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Versus Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025 and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Versus Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200, it is directed that opposite party no. 2 is liable to pay a sum equivalent to his 1 / 4 salary, to the revisionist. It is also directed that the revisionist shall inform Punjab National Bank, where the husband is working, that she has an independent bank account in her name and 1 / 4 salary shall be debited from the account of opposite party no. 2 every month in the account of the revisionist. 9. The account statement was not placed on record by the revisionist, as she was operating account of her mother as it has also come on record that the mother is not capable of running the account and therefore, there is no bar that a daughter cannot operate the account of her mother, if the mother is getting some income from different sources. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this revision is disposed of finally. March 18, 2026 HR CRLR No. 4650 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad