HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7851 of 2025 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 Against the said order dated 27.05.2005, opposite party no. 2 preferred an appeal, which was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 08.04.2008. 4.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 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Saurabh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Padmaker Pandey Shyam Manohar Gupta .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 CRLR No. 7851 of 2025 5 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad