Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23134 (ALL)

JAGPAL v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLR/852/2025 · 2025-09-18

Subhash Chandra Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 852 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 558 of 2021 (Smt. Phulwati Vs. Jagpal), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Ughaiti, District Budaun. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor child. The wife is living separate from him without any sufficient cause from the year 2021. The marriage was performed in the year 2019 and the opposite party no. 2 herself used to misbehave with the revisionist and other members of his family. She also made false allegations against them and left her matrimonial house on 20.3.2021, since then she is living in her maika and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance which was decided by the learned trial court fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 1000/- per month in favour of minor child, total Rs. 4000/- per month from the date of application. It is also submitted that there is no any regular source of income of the revisionist. The agricultural land belongs to his father. The amount so fixed by the learned trial court is more than sufficient and excessive and beyond paying capacity of the husband/revisionist, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and reduce the amount. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Hitesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jay Singh Yadav Jagpal .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the marriage was performed in the year 2019. Due to neglect and misbehavior on the part of the revisionist and other members of his family, she was expelled from her sasural and started living in her maika with minor child. There is agricultural land owned by his father and he lives with them. In this way, it cannot be said that there is no any income of the revisionist. The learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 1000/- per month in favour of minor child that is less than sufficient and meager. The learned trial court has not committed any error in passing the order in question. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 is living separate from the revisionist due to his neglect. The minor child is also living with her. No any amount is being given by the revisionist for maintenance of wife and minor child. She is also not able to maintain herself and her child as she has no any source of income. The amount of maintenance Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 1000/- per month in favour of minor child cannot be said to be more than sufficient or excessive. So far as the argument for unemployment of the revisionist is concerned, he is able bodied person and even if works as labourer, he will get Rs. 12,000/- per month at the rate of Rs. 400/- per day and he being husband is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order and it does not warrant interference by this Court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 19, 2025 Anurag Singh CRLR No. 852 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad