Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63292 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2840 of 2019 Revisionist :- Smt. Sulekha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Singh Parihar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Shailendra Singh Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount per month to the revisionist in accordance with evidence available on record and for setting aside the order dated 24.4.2019 passed by learned Family Judge (Fast Track Court), Jhansi, in Case No. 75 of 2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. 12000/- per month has been awarded to the revisionist with effect from 12.12.2017. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist, who had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her husband-opposite party No. 2 before this Court with the averment that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 11.5.1999 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals, in which her father gave about Rs. 4 lakh in cash and household goods worth Rs. 3 lakh and gold and silver jewellery etc. as dowry in various rituals as per the demand of the opposite party no. 2 and her sister Mrs. Vibha. After the farewell, the revisionist stayed with the opposite party no. 2 at his house and carried out her married life while fulfilling all her duties. The opposite party no. 2 does not have his parents at home, so his sister Mrs. Vibha has the upper hand in the house. Due to the influence of the sister, the opposite party no. 2 was not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and started demanding a car after some time of marriage. The revisionist's father was unable to give the car, so the revisionist started being harassed and troubled. Opposite party no. 2 is highly educated and is working as an Assistant Teacher in Nagar Palika Inter College, therefore the sister of opposite party no. 2 often insults her by taunting that she did not give anything in dowry, but was getting fifteen lakh rupees from other medicineplaces. She was harassed physically and mentally for dowry. However, she kept tolerating everything thinking that the opposite party no. 2 will come to his senses in time. But there was no improvement in the opponent's behavior, rather he got into bad habits like drinking alcohol and gambling. He used to waste his entire salary on alcohol and gambling and often after drinking alcohol at night, he used to come with his friends and beat the revisionist in the house and forced her to cook food for everyone at night. Due to long-term addiction to alcohol and other intoxicants, the condition of opposite party no. 2 worsened, due to which he became very unruly and used to beat her mercilessly on every small thing, many times he used to lock her in the room and keep her hungry. Once in a drunken state, he tried to kill the revisionist by burning her by pouring the kerosene on her. He often threatened that someday they will burn her with acid while she would be sleeping or kill her or he will commit suicide and implicate her family in a brothel case and make her rot in jail. On getting the information, the father of the revisionist came to the house of his relatives and tried to convince the opposite party no. 2 a lot but he did not listen. On which the father of the revisionist got the opposite party no. 2 treated in Jhansi Medical College and Bhopal with the help of his relatives but the opposite party no. 2 did not take the medicines regularly and threw it away. About seven months ago, the opposite party no. 2 beaten the revisionist and snatched her stridhan and forcibly made her sit in a bus and left her at her father's house in Gursarai. Since then the revisionist is living at her father's house. The opposite party no. 2 neither made any arrangements for her nutrition, nor did he inquire about her. The revisionist is also in danger of her life due to the threats and cruel acts of opposite party no. 2. The revisionist is a poor ordinary woman, she has no means of income. She is completely unable to support herself. Whereas the opposite party no. 2 is a rich person. Opposite party no. 2 is working as an Assistant Teacher in Nagar Palika Kanya Inter College, from which he gets a monthly salary of Rs. 45,000/-. On the above grounds, the revisionist has pleaded for twenty-five thousand rupees per month from the opposite party no. 2 for her maintenance, by stating that the cause of action has arisen. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it has been observed in the impugned judgment that as far as the question of opposite party no. 2 being a person of sufficient means and the revisionist being unable to maintain herself is concerned, the revisionist has proved the above fact with her evidence. Apart from this, the statements made by the opposite party no. 2 himself in cross-examination as DW-1 are also proved. It is further submitted that as DW-1, the opposite party no. 2, on page-5 of the judgment, has stated in cross-examination that it is true that I work permanently as an Assistant Teacher in a Nagar Palika Girls Inter College and I get a salary of Rs. 63,630/-. Sulekha does not do any job. In the opening lines of page-6, regarding his own social status and his wife's sources of income and living standards, he has stated that Sulekha does not have any source of income. I wear good and clean clothes. My entire food, drink and living expenses come to about twenty-five to thirty thousand rupees. I also want that my wife wear good clothes and eats good food. My wife be live at a dignified good standard. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that in spite of giving of finding of fact that opposite party no. 2 was getting salary to the tune of Rs. 63,630/- as he works as Assistant Teacher in Nagar Palika Girls Inter College, the learned trial court has awarded a meagre amount of maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month from which the revisionist is unable to maintain herself in proper manner. She has no independent source of income. He lastly submitted that the amount awarded in impugned order should be enhanced substantially and in reasonable manner. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also cited a judgment of this Court in Smt. Veena Panda Vs. Devendra Kishore Panda delivered on 22.02.2006, wherein the division bench of this Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, where the opposite party was a pensioner, who was getting Rs. 40,000/- as pension " without commutation". In para 10 of the above cited judgment, this Court held that as regard quantum of maintenance, it may be from 1/3 rd to 50% of the income of the respondent, but no rigid formula can be fixed. It may differ from case to case. The contributions towards General Provident Fund and payment towards installments of loan etc. should not be permitted to be deducted to work out the carry home salary. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that there is no legal infirmity in the quantum of maintenance awarded by trial court in impugned order. However, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 states that opposite party no. 2 is ready to give the amount pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Smt. Veena Panda (Supra). 8. Having considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that it is normal for a human in modern age to seek company of her husband at his work place to perform marital obligations and a human cannot be forced to part with company of her husband and reside with her parents-in-law at his native place of his husband, therefore, in view of said statement of the revisionist before the court below in her evidence, cannot be tantamount to the fact that she left her matrimonial place without any just and sufficient cause and parted her ways with her husband, therefore the finding of court below on this is correct and in consonance with evidence on record. 9. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material on record and the fact that monthly income of opposite party No. 2, which is shown as Rs. 63,630/- per month is not controverted on behalf of him also, the amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month awarded in impugned judgment is meagre and highly insufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision stands partly allowed. 11. On basis of foregoing discussions and judicial pronouncement cited above, the amount of maintenance awarded in impugned judgment is enhanced from Rs. 12,000/- per month to Rs. 21,000/- per month with same terms and conditions as awarded by the impugned judgment. However, it is directed that the amount of arrears, if any, shall be payable in six equal monthly installments with effect from 12.12.2017, provided opposite party No. 2 keep on paying the amount of maintenance as enhanced by this judgment on regular basis. 12. However, any infraction of this order will incur issuance of coercive process against opposite party No. 2. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 M. Tarik Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad