Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 89308 (ALL)

MUZAFFAR YAR KHAN v. SMT. NAZISH BEGUM

CRLR/4699/2025 · 2025-09-08

Subhash Chandra Sharma

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4699 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Order on Criminal Misc. Impleadment Application Learned counsel for the revisionist is to implead the State as opposite party no.2. Accordingly, the impeadment application is allowed. Order on Criminal Revision Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the judgement and order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lalitpur in Case No.479/2020 (Nazish Beghum vs. Muzaffar Yar Khan) during the pendency of the revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party no.2/wife for enhancement of amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month which was fixed by the learned trial court in application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by order dated 12.07.2013. Further submits that the revisionist was government servant but now he is retired and gets pension Rs.60,000/- per month out of which learned trial court has fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.15,000/- per month that is 25% of the amount of pension and for the period from the date Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ram Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Om Prakash Singh Muzaffar Yar Khan .....Revisionist(s) Smt. Nazish Begum .....Opposite Party(s) of application to the date of retirement fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.20,000/- per month on the basis of income Rs.80,000/- per month. He also submitted that as per admission of opposite party no.2/wife she gets Rs.5500/- per month from Aganwari and this amount has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while enhancing the amount of maintenance, therefore, request to reduce the amount as fixed by the learned trial court by order dated 02.06.2025. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist was getting gross salary Rs.1,32,334/- per month and after deduction Rs.1,16,334/- per month in the month of August, 2023. Now he has retired on 31.10.2024 and gets pension Rs.60,000/- per month. Learned trial court assumed his income Rs.80,000/- in the year 2020 before retirement and accordingly fixed the amount of maintenance Rs.20,000/- per month at the rate of 25% and after retirement Rs.15,000/- per month out of pension Rs.60,000/- per month. This amount cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the income of the husband/revisionist. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 02.06.2025, it is evident that the revisionist was government servant and getting gross salary Rs.1,32,334/- in the month of August, 2023 and after deduction it was Rs.1,16,334/-. Since the present application for enhancement was moved in the year 2020, therefore, the learned trial court assumed the monthly income of Rs.80,000/- per month on the place of Rs.1,16,334/- per month and fixed 25% of his net salary as the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.20,000/- per month till the date of retirement. After retirement the revisionist gets pension Rs.60,000/- per month out of which 25% i.e. Rs.15,000/- per month has been fixed by the learned trial court in view of observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 that the amount of maintenance in favour of wife may extend to 25% of the net salary of the husband. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court in fixing the amount of maintenance by order dated 02.06.2025 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 9, 2025 Ashok Gupta CRLR No. 4699 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad