Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43170 (ALL)

SUMIT KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLR/1705/2024 · 2025-08-11

Madan Pal Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137315 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1705 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sumit Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Akash Sharma,Digvijay Tiwari,Rakesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Gaurav Singh Chauhand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with prayer to set aside the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bulandshahr, in Maintenance Case No. 327 of 2019 (Smt. Apurva Sharma and another Vs. Sumit Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Anoopshahr, District- Buloandshahr whereby the revisionist has directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party no.3 (minor son) till he attains the age of majority from the date of application dated 20.5.2025. The arrears of amounts shall be paid to the opposite parties within 12 months from the date of the order. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2016 according Hindu rites and ritual after some time of the marriage, mother of opposite party no.2 was interfering in the matrimonial life. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 left the house of the revisionist without any specific reason, thereafter, the revisionist had lodged the F.I.R. against her husband on 30.1.2019 under Section 323, 307, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Anuspshahr, District- Bulandshahr. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is working as Assistant Scientist in BHABA, Maharastra and get total salary Rs. 1,15,344/-per month after deduction, revisionist received of Rs. 55,074/-, the revisionist had already taken home loan but the learned trial court fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 15,000/- per month to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. All these factors were not taken into consideration by learned trial court while deciding the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision and reduce the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, revisionist is working as Assistant Scientist in BHABHA, Atomic Research Centre, B.R.C. Tarapur, Maharastra and gets total salary Rs.1,15,344/- per month. The husband/revisionist is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and son, they are unable to maintain themselves. The amount fixed by learned trial court cannot be said to be in excess or not in proportion to the salary of the husband. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court dated 31.1.2024, the revisionist is a Assistant Scientist in BHABA, Maharastra and gets total salary Rs.1,15,344/- per month. The opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and from their wedlock one child namely Yug/ opposite party no.3 was born, therefore, the revisionist has the pious duty to maintain his wife and son. In Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arise. 6. Considering the income of the revisionist, the amount of maintenance as has been awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be divided into 12 equal monthly installments. The first installment will fall on September, 15, 2025 and thereafter revisionist will continue to pay other eleven installments in fifteen day of each month. In addition to the payment of installments of arrears of maintenance, the revision will continue to pay the monthly maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as has been awarded by the trial court vide order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the present revision disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad