Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136335 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4367 of 2024 Revisionist :- Bind Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar, Mohd. Sarwar Khan, Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Laxmi Pandey, Shashi Chood Pandey Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Shashi Chood Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant criminal revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist against the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Jaunpur in Case No. 961 of 2019 (Jigyasa Vs. Bind Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application dated 03.09.2014 and thereafter Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of the order dated 21.05.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist never performed marriage with the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel further submits that two daughters of the opposite party no.2, namely, Akanksha aged 7 years and Shreya aged about 6 years were born from the wedlock of one Bade Lal and not from the revisionist. Both the children were born while the opposite party no.2 was in live-in-relationship with one Bade Lal and the said Bade Lal never made party at any stage in the proceedings, therefore, the revisionist cannot be held responsible for payment of any maintenance either to the opposite party no.2 or her children i.e. opposite parties no. 3 and 4, respectively. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the trial court without examining the fact whether the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist, has awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2, which is unjust, improper and deserves to be set aside and quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State, submit that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and being husband of opposite party no.2, it is the pious duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife and children as has been held in catena of decisions by this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist wherein the statements of the witnesses have been annexed. At page12 of the supplementary affidavit the cross-examination dated 28.03.2022 of P.W.1/opposite party no.2 has been annexed, wherein she has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the revisionist-Bind Kumar in a temple and in the said temple there was no provision for issuing any kind of marriage certificate, hence no marriage certificate had been issued at that time in favour of the opposite party no.2. She further stated that she lived 3-4 years with the revisionist as his wife but no child was born from their wedlock. 8. So far as issuance of marriage certificate and proof of marriage is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding Criminal Appeal Nos. 2368-2369 of 2009 (Kamala and others Vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar) in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Vidut Prabha Dixit and another, AIR 1999 SC 3348, held that the standard of proof of marriage in a section 125 proceedings is not a strict as is required in atrial for an offence under Section 494 IPC. In another case Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a detailed guidelines regarding maintenance case and observed that the strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court further observed that the evidence regarding man and woman living together for a reasonable period should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage. In the present case, the opposite party no.2 in his cross- examination has stated that she lived with revisionist for 3-4 years as his wife but from their wedlock no child was born. 8. In view of the above case law cited above, it is clear that the opposite party no.2 lived with revisionist 3-4 years, which is a considerable period to presume that both the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 were living together as husband and wife. 9. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in the impugned order at page-16 held that the revisionist has admitted that he is M.A. in Sanskrit and since 2014, he is working as Assistant Professor, Sanskrit, in a Government Degree College and he is drawing salary of Rs.90,000/- per month from the state exchequer. He further admitted that after deduction, he is getting salary of Rs.70,000/- per month and in view of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary of the husband. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance Rs. 20,000/- is in excess and not in proportion to the income of the husband and the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case, therefore, it is liable to be reduced. The amount of maintenance Rs. 20,000/- is reduced to the extent of Rs. 17,500/- which is directed to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of order and the order directing the revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of the application will remain the same. The aforesaid amount will be payable in terms of order passed by learned trial court dated 21.05.2024. 10. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is modified to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad