Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4635 (ALL)

Arvind Kumar v. State of U. P.

2026-02-23

Jai Krishna Upadhyay

body2026
JUDGMENT : JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J. 1. List revised. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice whereas learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State are present. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the impugned judgement and order dated 10.05.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonebhadra in Misc. Case No. 592 of 2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Neelam Kumari Vs. Arvind Kumar, Police Station – Karma, District – Sonebhadra whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to his wife/opposite party no. 2 towards her maintenance from the date of filing of application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on 14.04.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals and his father-in-law had given Rs. 50000/-, motor cycle, some ornaments and household articles. After 10 days of marriage his father-in-law died due to an electric shock. Opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2019 with the allegation that her husband (revisionist) and his relatives demanded a buffalo, a golden chain, LCD TV etc. Thereafter her father came with some relatives to discuss and sort out the matter but it is alleged that revisionist and his family continued physical and mental torture on opposite party no. 2 for additional dowry. It is also alleged by opposite party no. 2 that her husband (revisionist) used to consume lilquor and misbehave with her alongwith his friends. 4. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 made allegation against her husband (revisionist) that he called her brother and sent her back to her house on 13.08.2019 retaining all her clothes and jewellery and saying that if the demand was not fulfilled, they would not bring her back home. 5. It is also alleged by opposite party no. 2 that she is living at her parental house and is dependent on her father who is a poor man and unable to maintain her and she herself also has no means of income. It is further stated by opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist owns agricultural land and also runs phtotostat and mobile shops and his annual income from these resoruces is around Rs. 2,50,000/-. 6. It is further stated by opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist owns agricultural land and also runs phtotostat and mobile shops and his annual income from these resoruces is around Rs. 2,50,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the revisionist/opponent (in his objection as. 15-A) has accepted that opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife. He further stated that he never harassed the opposite party no.2 (wife) for dowry. The opposite party no.2 was not maintaining matrimonial life with her husband and she herself was not willing to live with him and she herself left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home of her own wish. He stated that opposite party no. 2 was avoiding to maintain physical relationship with him claiming that she had menstruation problem. When the revisionist asked her to use pregnancy kit, it revealed that she was pregnant. Being shocked, when the revisionist asked about the pregnancy, opposite party no. 2 told him that she had an illicit relationship with his Jija, prior to marriage and she became pregnant from this relationship. Even then the revisionist was ready to live with her but she refused. Thereafter the revisionist filed Divorce Petition in court where again she refused to live with him. He further stated that he earns his livelihood by doing work of labour whenever he offered with labour work. Apart from that he has no other source of income as alleged by opposite party no. 2. 7. In the oral evidence, the opposite party no. 2 Neelam Kumari, examined herself as PW1 and Jag Narain as PW2. In the documentary evidence, opposite party no. 2 has filed the marriage card and Aadhar Card as list 5B-1, and list 21-B, annexing photographs of shops of her husband and khatauni paper of land in the name of his husband’s father along with her affidavit and affidavit of PW-2 which shows that revisionist is engaged in some business activity. 8. Revisionist Arvind Kumar has examined himself as DW1 and accepted that opposite party no. 2 is his legally wedded wife but opposed the other averments of opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist has other source of income. 8. Revisionist Arvind Kumar has examined himself as DW1 and accepted that opposite party no. 2 is his legally wedded wife but opposed the other averments of opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist has other source of income. As per the evidence on record and submissions raised on behalf of the parties, learned Family Court passed the impugned order whereby the Court allowed the maintenance to opposite party no.2/wife Neelam Kumari of Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of filing maintenance petition i.e. 25.11.2019. 9. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite party no.2/wife is not entitled to get maintenance because she left the matrimonial home on her own will whereas revisionist was willing to bring her back at home. All efforts to bring her to the matrimonial home failed on account of her refusal. He further submitted that even quantum of maintenance is not sustainable in view of the income of the revisionist/husband. 10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. by defending the impugned order submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned and the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 11. On perusal of the evidence available on record, I find that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and that her marriage with the revisionist was solemnized on 14.05.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The revisionist has also admitted these facts before the trial court, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 admittedly the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The revisionist could not produce any concrete evidence regarding the alleged illicit relationship of his wife with her Jija. 12. In her petition, opposite party no.2/wife stated that revisionist and his family members retained the goods/streedhan given by her parents at the time of marriage when she was ousted from her matrimonial home. She stated that she was subjected to mental and physical torture and the husband and her in-laws pressurized her to bring a buffalo, a golden chain, LCD TV etc. She stated that she was subjected to mental and physical torture and the husband and her in-laws pressurized her to bring a buffalo, a golden chain, LCD TV etc. She further stated that she is unable to maintain herself as she has no source of income. In support of their submissions, affidavits have been filed by both the parties. In the oral evidence, the opposite party no. 2 Neelam Kumari, W/o Arvind Kumar examined herself as PW1 and Jag Narain as PW2. In the documentary evidence, opposite party no. 2 has filed the marriage card and Aadhar Card as list 5B-1, and list 21-B, annexing photographs of his shops and khatauini paper of land in the name of his father along with her affidavit and affidavit of PW-2 who also supported the version of opposite party no. 2 which shows that revisionist owns agricultural land and also runs shops of phtotostat and mobile and by these resources his annual income in total is around Rs. 2,50,000/-. 13. The revisionist has stated in his cross examination that he is not in any kind business nor does he own any shop. He only goes to work when offered labour work. He has admitted that opposite party no. 2 is his wife and is ready to bring her wife back to his home. 14. Before arriving at the conclusion in the matter, it would be imperative to refer the relevant statutory provisions. 15. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of wives, children and parents. He has admitted that opposite party no. 2 is his wife and is ready to bring her wife back to his home. 14. Before arriving at the conclusion in the matter, it would be imperative to refer the relevant statutory provisions. 15. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of wives, children and parents. The Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- " 125.Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- "(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-" (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means: Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. Explanation. Explanation. For the purposes of this Chapter- (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due : Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be a just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order." 16. In paragraph Nos.37, 38, 39 and 40 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another: (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "37. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. 38.Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 39.The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in relationship for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim under Section 125 CrPC came up for consideration in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha [Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666. This judgment was referred to a larger Bench.] before the Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be entitled to maintenance. A man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term "wife", to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in 2003, which recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage. 40.The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubinage, when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC such strict standard of proof is not necessary. [Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 732 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 242]." 17. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC such strict standard of proof is not necessary. [Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 732 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 242]." 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (supra) has provided for criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, which reads as under:- "77.The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78.The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.[ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 ; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v.Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]" 79.In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v.Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80.On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]" 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the evidence on record, it is evident that that Smt. Neelam Kumar/opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist, Arvind Kumar. It is further evident that revisionist failed to prove that wife was living at her maika without any rhyme and reason. On the contrary material brought on record clearly indicate that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of mental and physical torture by her husband and in-laws. The revisionist also failed to prove that he works as a labour and has no other source of income as alleged by opposite party no. 2. 19. So far as the evidence with regard to the quantum of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court to opposite party nos. 2 @ Rs. 3000/- per month, is concerned, I find that as per the pleadings and evidence on record produced by the wife – Smt. Neealm Kumari (Opposite party no. 2. 19. So far as the evidence with regard to the quantum of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court to opposite party nos. 2 @ Rs. 3000/- per month, is concerned, I find that as per the pleadings and evidence on record produced by the wife – Smt. Neealm Kumari (Opposite party no. 2) on record, she has no means to maintain herself and she is living at her parental house whereas her husband/revisionist owns some agricultural land and also runs shops of phtotostat and mobile and by these resources his annual income in total is around Rs. 2,50,000/-. Hence, there is no doubt about the entitlement of opposite party nos. 2 to get maintenance from the revisionist. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court concerned is not excessive, as such I do not find any illegality or perversity in finding of fact or any error of law, requiring any interference in the impugned order, hence the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. 21. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary compliance.