Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 63519 (ALL)

MUNEESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

CRLR/2646/2025 · 2025-08-11

Subhash Chandra Sharma

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136668 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2646 of 2025 Revisionist :- Muneesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kumar Sharma,Rakesh Kumar Kanaujiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by Additional Principle Judge, Family Court Pilibhit, District Pilibhit in Maintenance Case No. 265 of 2021, (Smt. Reena Devi Vs Muneesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Barkhera, District Pilibhit. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist who is living separate from him in her maika without any sufficient reason and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 01.05.2025 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of wife from the date of application. He further submits that the revisionist was working in Army and now he has been retired and gets pension that is Rs. 21,325/- per month out of which the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is excessive and beyond his paying capacity since he has taken personal loan and also he has liability to maintain his old parents, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and reduce the amount. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the revisionist has misbehaved and maltreated the opposite party no. 2 and during her lifetime entered into marriage with some other lady with whose association there is a child. He neglected to maintain the opposite party no. 2 that is the reason she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. She has no any source of income and is unable to maintain herself. There is sufficient reason for the wife to live separate from him when he married second wife during her lifetime. The revisionist has received the amount of retiral benefits and also the salary received by him during the service period. Now, he is retired and admittedly gets pension Rs. 21,325/- per month. There is agricultural land the receipts of sale of produce for the year 2022-2023 were also filed on record showing the income of Rs. 1,18,881/- by sale of sugarcane. It also shows the income of the revisionist. In case, this amount is given to the parents then there is no any financial liability of the parents on the revisionist. There is some other agricultural land also. He also contends that the amount so fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive as per status of the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., the order passed by the learned trial court dated 01.05.2025 and perusal of material on record, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 is wedded wife of the revisionist who is living apart from him in her maika due to his neglect and the fact that he has entered into second marriage even during the life time of first wife and has also an issue with her. Now, he gets pension as admitted by himself that is Rs. 21,325/- per month. There may have the amount of retiral benefits of the revisionist and also the salary being received by him in his service period. In view of these facts the amount of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of wife as maintenance cannot be said to be excessive as per status of husband and wife. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 01.05.2025 and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad