Smt Sadhana @ Shakshi And Another vs State of U.P. and Another

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 223 of 2024
Smt Sadhana @ Shakshi And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : S.P.S. Chauhan, Smt. Meenakshi
Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhinav Singh, G.A., Santosh Kumar
Upadhyay, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 51 of 2024

Jitendra Singh Som
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of Up Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anish Kumar Singh, Desh Ratan
Chaudhary, Mukesh Chandra Gupta,
Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Shubham
Prakash Gupta, Vinod Kumar
Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., S.P.S. Chauhan, Smt. Meenakshi
Chauhan
RESERVED
In Chamber
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for revisionists, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and
perused the record.
2. Criminal Revision No. 223 of 2024 has been filed by the Smt. Sadhana
(wife) against the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in Maintenance

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
2
Case No. 829 of 2019 (Smt. Sadhna @ Sakshi and another vs. Jitendra
Singh Som) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pahasu, District
Bulandshahar, whereby the learned Court below has allowed the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the revisionists and the opposite
party no. 2 has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- to the revision no. 1 and
Rs. 12,000/- to the revisionist no. 2 from the date of filing of the
application till passing of present impugned judgment and order and to
pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to revisionist no. 1 and Rs. 15,000/- per
month to the revisionist no. 2 as maintenance from the date of impugned
judgment and order. The revisionists by means of present revisionist have
prayed for enhancement of maintenance amount awarded by the Court
below from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- per month from the date of filing
of application.
3. Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2024 has been filed by Jitendra Singh
Som (husband) with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order
dated 01.12.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in aforesaid Maintenance Case No. 829 of
2019 (Smt. Sadhna @ Sakshi and another vs. Jitendra Singh Som) under
section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pahasu, District Bulandshahar.
4. Since both criminal revisions are arising out of same impugned
judgment and order dated 1.12.2023, therefore, these criminal revisions
are being disposed of by a common order. Criminal Revision No. 223 of
2024 is the leading case for the purpose of judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that marriage of
opposite party no. 2 with the revisionist no. 1 is his (opposite party no.
2’s) second marriage and on demand of her in-laws, parents of revisionist
no. 1 spent Rs. 12 lakhs in the marriage and had given all household
items. However, opposite party no. 2 and his family members were not
satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were
demanding additional dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and Swift Car and when the
demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled, they started mental and
physical harassment of the revisionist no. 1. The revisionist no. 1 was
thrown out from her matrimonial house during her pregnancy period, on
account of illicit relation of opposite party no. 2 with some other lady and
non fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. The revisionist no. 2 was
born out of their wedlock at the parental house of revisionist no. 1 on

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
3
29.12.2017. In this regard, the revisionist no. 1 has filed Criminal Case
No. 481 of 2017, under Section 498A, 323, 504 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act,
wherein, Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, District Bulandshahar has
summoned the opposite party no. 2 and his parents to face trial and in that
case, the opposite party no. 2 and his parents are on bail and facing trial.
6. Opposite party no. 2 has not taken any care of the revisionists and has
also not paid any maintenance after birth of their son and had also not
taken them back. The revisionist has no source of income for their
maintenance and therefore, has filed maintenance petition, wherein, the
opposite party no. 2 appeared before the trial Court and submitted his
written reply but, he has not disclosed his true income. The revisionist no.
1 although an educated lady but, is unable to work and is jobless, who is
totally dependent upon her parents. The opposite party no. 2 has not paid
any maintenance, whereas, he is serving as Engineer and is earning Rs.
1,94,860/- per month and fully capable to pay maintenance to both the
revisionists. In support of his contention, the revisionist has filed salary
slip of the opposite party no. 2 dated 25.6.2022, which shows that he is
serving as Engineer in Nokia Solutions and Network India Pvt. Ltd. at
Noida and getting Rs. 1,94,860/- per month. It was further argued that the
revisionist has no source of income for maintenance of herself and her
son. However, learned trial Court on the basis of misleading affidavit of
opposite party no. 2 filed in compliance of direction of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha has wrongly assessed his monthly income as
Rs. 1,20,000/- per month without appreciating the evidence available on
record. None of the family members of opposite party no. 2 is dependent
upon him. The learned Court below has not correctly appreciated the
evidence available on record and as such the impugned order is liable to
be modified by directing the opposite party no. 2 to pay maintenance of
Rs. 75,000/- per month to the revisionists.
7. It was further submitted that the facts of first marriage of opposite party
no. 2 with Bhawana and birth of one daughter Km. Kanak from first
marriage as well as divorce from his first wife have been concealed by the
opposite party no. 2 from the parents of revisionist. Lastly, it was argued
that the amount of maintenance awarded to the revisionist and her minor
son are not sufficient to maintain themselves, therefore, learned counsel
urged for allowing this revision and for enhancement of monthly

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
4
maintenance and for dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2024.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the
State have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision and argued
that impugned judgment and order has been passed on the facts available
on the file that too in accordance with well settled law, therefore, prayed
for dismissal of the present criminal revision.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the
marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with revisionist no. 1
on 2.6.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals without any demand of dowry.
It is the second marriage of the opposite party no. 2 and out of their
wedlock, one son namely Lakshya Som was born. They were living
happily. The revisionist no. 1 was in a private job. The revisionist is very
ambitious and was not comfortable with his (O.P. No.2’s) parents and
when his father fell ill and required care and support, she was not ready to
do and left his house. He tried to pursue and convince her to live with
him. He also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. On account of
continuous efforts, she came to the house on two occasions but again
went to her parental house and filed an application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. against him on false and frivolous grounds.
10. It was further submitted that the revisionist is a qualified lady and has
obtained post graduate degree in a professional course i.e. fashion
designing and she is able to maintain herself. He has filed all
documentary evidence regarding liabilities in support of his written
statement. However, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has allowed
the application filed by the revisionist without appreciating the evidence
on record. He was always ready to keep the revisionists with all love,
affection and care and he had made such offer in the proceedings of the
present case before the learned Principal Judge. The revisionist had
herself deserted and left him without any sufficient reason. The impugned
order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bulandshahar is not in accordance with law and therefore, warrants
interference by this Court. Lastly it was urged that Criminal Revision No.
223 of 2024 be dismissed and his Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2024 be
allowed and the impugned judgment and order be set aside in entirety.
11. Admittedly, the revisionist no. 1 is legally wedded wife of opposite

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
5
party no. 2, whereas revisionist no. 2 is son of revisionist no. 1 and
opposite party no. 2. It is also admitted fact between the parties that a
Criminal Case No. 481 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and
¾ of D.P. Act is pending between the parties, which has been lodged by
the revisionist no. 1 against the opposite party no. 2 and his parents for
dowry harassment. It is also an admitted fact that a suit for restitution of
conjugal rights was filed by opposite party no. 2, which was dismissed.
Pendency of criminal case that too regarding dowry harassment of
revisionist no. 1 at the hands of opposite party no. 2 and his parents gave
a reasonable cause to revisionist no. 1 to live apart from her husband. It is
a statutory as well as social obligation of a husband to maintain his wife
and children.
12. The trial Court has recorded a finding in para no. 16, 17 and 18 of the
impugned judgment that the revisionist no. 1 has a reasonable cause to
live separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no. 2 and is thus
residing in her parental house. Therefore, as far as reasons for the
revisionist living separately is concerned, the learned trial Court has
recorded a categorical finding on this issue and this Court being a
Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also cannot
substitute it’s own finding, in place of the finding of facts recorded by the
trial Court on this issue in question, unless the finding is completely
perverse and is against the facts and law, which is not the case in hand.
13. In the present case, revisionist no. 1 filed an application for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., who is the wife of the opposite
party no. 2. Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony,
anguish and financial suffering of a woman, who left her matrimonial
home for the reasons provided in the provision, so that some suitable
arrangement can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and
also her children, if they are with her. Apex Court in Badshah vs. Urmila
has held that the
Badshah Godse and another (2014) 1 SCC 188,
provision of maintenance aims at empowering the destitute and achieving
social justice or equality and dignity of the individual and while dealing
with cases thereunder, the drift in the approach from adversarial litigation
to social context adjudication is the need of the hour. Apex Court in
Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2015) 5 SCC 705 , has emphasized that
maintenance laws were enacted as a measure of social justice to provide

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
6
recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as
to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.
14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs.
Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another (2025)
3 SCC 33 has clarified the law of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C..
The relevant paras 9 to 14 are reproduced herein below:-
“ 9. In its 41st Report submitted on 24th September, 1969, the Law Commission
of India, while adverting to Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898, observed that the primary justification for placing provisions relating to
maintenance of wives and children, which is a civil matter, in the Criminal
Procedure Code was that a remedy, speedier and more economical than that
available in the Civil Courts, is provided to them. The Law Commission noted
that the provision was aimed at preventing starvation and vagrancy, leading to
commission of crime.
10. On the same lines, in this Court observed that the
Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai,
object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his neglect but
to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her
food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. It was held that Section 125
Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women and
children, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by
Article 39 of the Constitution. Thus, the objective of the provision, then and
now, is to alleviate the financial plight of destitute wives, children and now,
parents, who are left to fend for themselves.
11. In , this Court observed that
Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others
Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and
financial suffering of a woman, who left her matrimonial home for the reasons
provided in the provision, so that some suitable arrangement can be made by
the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children, if they are with
her. It was held that the concept of sustenance did not necessarily mean ‘to
lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace
and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else’ and the wife would be
entitled in law to lead a life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the
house of her husband. This Court further cautioned that, in a proceeding of
this nature, the husband cannot be permitted to take subterfuge to deprive the
wife of the benefits of living with dignity and there could be no escape route,
unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get
maintenance from the husband on legally permissible grounds.
12. Earlier, in Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and another, this Court
held that the provision of maintenance aims at empowering the destitute and
achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual and while
dealing with cases thereunder, the drift in the approach from adversarial
litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour.
13. More recently, in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another , this Court emphasized
that maintenance laws were enacted as a measure of social justice to provide
recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to
prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.
14. In Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan , this Court noted that the inherent

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
7
and fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the amelioration of
the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish that a
woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. It was
further observed that, as per law, she is entitled to lead life in a similar
manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband and as long as
she is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section
125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity. Lastly, it
was noted that, a plea is sometimes advanced by the husband that he does not
have the means to pay as he does not have a job or his business is not doing
well, but these are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in
law as a husband, who is healthy, able-bodied and in a position to support
himself is under a legal obligation to support his wife and her right to receive
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., unless disqualified, is an absolute
right.”
15. Thus, provision for maintenance is a manifestation of the State's
commitment to safeguard weaker sections of society, particularly women
and children, from neglect and economic deprivation within the protective
ambit of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India. The liability to
maintain is continuous, enforceable, and insulated from considerations of
proprietary holdings, flowing solely from the existence of the marital or
familial relationship. Courts have consistently reiterated that
maintenance is not charity but a right, and its enforcement is
essential to uphold equity, justice, and good conscience. Thus,
maintenance jurisprudence in India stands as a testament to the
judiciary's resolve to ensure that no wife, child, or dependent parent
is left to languish in penury due to the neglect of those legally bound
to sustain them.
16. In the light of above principles, a perusal of the impugned judgment
and order reveals that none of the party has placed on record any
documentary evidence regarding income of revisionist no. 1. Revisionist
no. 1 has claimed that the opposite party no. 2 is not maintaining her.
Before the trial Court, opposite party no. 2 has stated that revisionist is a
highly qualified lady having degree in the form of M.A. in a professional
course i.e. fashion designing and is earning on account of teaching and
tuitions, but no documentary evidence, regarding income of revisionist
no. 1 has been placed on record by the opposite party no. 2. In this
background, whether revisionist is capable of earning or whether she is
actually earning, are two different requirements. If wife is capable of
earning, then her mere capability is not sufficient to deny maintenance to
her.

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
8
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain,
(2017) 15 SCC 801 , has observed:
"16. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is
conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim
for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to
meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of
maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the
financial position of the wife's parents is also immaterial. The court must take
into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to
pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income
sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon
factual situation; the court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance
determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the court."
18. Similarly, in Shailja and another v. Khobbanna, (2018), 12 SCC
, it has been observed:
199
"5. That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that
Appellant I was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing
the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether Appellant 1 is
capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different
requirements Merely because Appellant 1 is capable of earning is not, in our
opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family
Court."
19. Therefore, the law on this point is very clear that if wife is educated
and well qualified to earn an income, this itself is not sufficient to deny
maintenance to her.
20. It is not the case of opposite party no. 2 that revisionist is having any
specialized technical / medical qualification like B.Tech. M.B.A., M.C.A.,
M.B.B.S. etc. In present-day scenario, by merely acquiring M.A. in
fashion designing technology, it cannot be presumed that revisionist is
actually earning some income, unless proved contrary. Although, it has
been claimed by the opposite party no. 2 that his wife is earning Rs.
60,000/- per month from fashion designing. But, no such record was
produced, either before this revisional Court or trial Court. Therefore, this
plea of husband/opposite party no. 2, that the wife is earning Rs. 60,000/-
per month, is not acceptable. However, the opposite party no. 2 has
admitted in his affidavit 24A filed in complaince to direction of Apex
Court issued in that he is getting a salary of Rs.
Rajnesh vs. Neha
1,25,000/- in hand per month. However, a finding to this effect has also
been recorded by learned trial Court at para 20 of the impugned judgment
that he is getting a salary of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month. Therefore, as per

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
9
his own admission in affidavit 24A, opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs.
1,25,000/- per month.
21. The direction issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and
another (2021) 2 SCC 324 are not mere formalities. A uniform format of
affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities was directed to be filed by
the parties in all maintenance proceedings. It was also directed that the
format may be modified by the court concerned if the exengencies of a
case require the same (para 72 to 95). It was also directed that the Court
may involve Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the
income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal
knowledge of the party concerned. Apex Court in Aditi @ Mithi vs.
Jitesh Sharma 2023 INSC 981 has directed that the guidelines given in
Rajnesh’s case (supra) be re-circulated to all the judicial officers through
the High Courts concerned.
22. Law of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is well settled and
proceedings under this section are of summary nature and are intended to
enable destitute wives and children to get maintenance in a speedy
manner. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing a
speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted
wife and children. It’s primary object is to give social justice to the
women, child and infirm parents etc. It is in this light, the affidavits are
required to be filed. Inspite of uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure
of Assets and Liabilities, parties may devise ways to defeat the very
object of this social litigation and the Court’s cannot shut its eyes on the
ways so devised by the parties. It is the bounden duty of a trial Court to
ensure that a party should not file an evasive affidavit just to avoid his
liability to pay maintenance either to his wife/ child or his parents. The
courts are required to be vigilant to find out such attempts and when
detected, appropriate steps including invoking Section 106 of the
Evidence Act as well as initiating action for prosecution under Sections
199/191 & 193 or 209 may also be initiated. It is thus a bounden duty of a
trial court to ensure compliance of directions issued by Apex Court in
Rajnesh’s case (supra) in letter and spirit.
23. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the case at hand, the
proceedings before the Family Court were concluded without being alive
to the objects, reasons and the spirit of the provision under Section 125

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
10
Cr.P.C.. Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to the issues such as the
plight of the Indian women, who is forced to live separately and take care
of young children, who (wife) is running from pillar to post just to receive
maintenance for herself and her minor children, therefore, family Courts
are dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to
maintenance. The very object of the maintenance proceedings is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution of such deserted wife by providing food,
clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy for maintenance. The trial Court
can ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman and
thereby social justice as well as equality and dignity of a woman can be
ensured. Family Courts should not show undue haste or impatience, but
there is a distinction between impatience and to be wisely anxious and
conscious about dealing with a situation. This Court had made the above
observations as this Court felt, that the Family Court in the said case had
conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons,
and the spirit of the provision under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Such an
impression has been gathered by this Court in the case on hand.
24. A perusal of the affidavit filed by Jitendra Singh Som in the light of
above well settled principles of law reveals that he has shown three family
members to be dependent upon him, his father Rambhool Singh (72
years), his mother Munesh Devi (68 years) and his sister Rajani Som (36
years) in para ‘C detail of dependent family members’. However, in its
sub para-2, he has mentioned that his father is a pensioner and in his cross
examination when he was shown the particulars mentioned by him in his
aforesaid affidavit and was asked that as to why he has not mentioned the
amount of pension being drawn by his father, then he stated that amount
of pension is known to his father. Therefore, it is apparently clear that his
father is a pensioner. During the course of argument this Court made an
oral query to which, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 stated
that father of Jitendra is retired Army personnel and is drawing pension
from Indian Army. In this background Jitendra has filed a false affidavit
showing his father and mother to be dependent upon him, whereas his
father is a pensioner and his mother is dependent upon his father.
Moreover, he has not explained that whether his sister Rajani aged 36
years is married or not and when their father Rambhool is alive, it cannot
be easily presumed that his 38 years old sister is dependent upon him

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
11
without there being any other necessary particulars in this regard. In his
affidavit, he has stated that he is getting salary of Rs. 1,25,000/- per
month in hand, however, he has not disclosed other benefits and
allowances received by him. The opposite party no. 2 is already paying
maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to his daughter Kanak born out of
his wedlock from his first wife, therefore, his effective net salary i.e. carry
home salary after deducting this amount comes out to be Rs. 1,20,000/-.
25. In his affidavit, opposite party no. 2 has admitted that he is income tax
payee, however, he has not filed his income tax return as clearly indicated
in the prescribed proforma of the affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 has
admitted himself to be a salaried person getting a salary of Rs. 1,25,000/-
per month in hand i.e. he himself has admitted that after all deductions he
is getting a net salary of Rs. 1,25,000/- which is his net salary. However,
once again opposite party no. 2 has not annexed requisite latest salary
certificate, pay slip and bank account statement in which he is
receiving his salary, which were required to be filed as per sub para
5, 6, 7 and 9 of para ‘F’ of Uniform Proforma of Affidavit of Assets
and Liabilities . Meaning thereby, that opposite party no. 2 has
intentionally concealed the material documents showing his actual
income, from the trial Court. The opposite party no. 2 has also
intentionally concealed his latest salary certificate as well as salary slip
with an objective that the trial Court could not find out the amount of
actual deductions from his gross salary, because those deductions could
have been much higher than the requisite statutory deductions. The
approach of trial Court in receiving and placing reliance on opposite party
no. 2’s affidavit, while writing down the judgment seems to be very
casual and lackadaisical in nature. It was the bounden duty of the learned
trial Court to examine that affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2 in
compliance of Rajnesh’s case (supra) was required to be filled up with
all mandatory necessary details as well as all requisite necessary
documents. If a simple detailed perusal of affidavit would have been
done, these all intentional concealment would have been easily noted by
learned trial Court.
26. The opposite party no. 2 with some legal advise has shown his parents
and sister as dependent upon him, just to deny the lawful right of the
revisionists to receive maintenance from him. It is admitted fact that

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
12
father of opposite party no. 2, Rambhool, is an ex-serviceman and is
receiving pension from the Army. There is no such statement made in the
affidavit that his father is physically dependent upon him or economically
dependent upon him or both. Clever devise of opposite party no. 2 is
apparent, because he is residing with his parents in his house which he
states to be in the name of his father but has intentionally concealed the
amount of pension received by his father. Indian Army provides full
medical facilities to ex-serviceman across the country. Father of opposite
party no. 2 is residing at Meerut and it is well known fact that Meerut is a
Cantonment Area having Military Hospital where all facilities including
reimbursement of expenses, if incurred on purchase of medicines, can
also be easily sought and inspite of this fact, the opposite party no. 2 has
shown expenses of Rs. 30,000/- per month on his parents. Therefore, in
the absence of necessary particulars regarding actual amount of pension
being received by the father of opposite party no. 2 as well as health
facilities available and utilized in the Defence establishment area, it
cannot be presumed that the father and mother are dependent upon him.
The opposite party no. 2 has also not shown marital status, if any, of his
sister which is another material concealment. If the trial Court would have
been a little vigilant regarding it’s duty in maintenance proceedings, such
a situation could have been easily averted. Family Courts are presided by
Senior Judicial Officers of the cadre of Higher Judicial Services and
therefore, it is expected from such officers to be not only alive to the
ground realitics but they have a bounden duty to assess and carefully
examine any calculative devise of a husband to subterfuge the right of
maintenance of a wife and child.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
(2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the
husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the
husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-
bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of
Rajnesh Vs.
Neha (supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3
, has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted
SCC 129
up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband to the wife and
15% of the net income to their child. The maintenance amount awarded

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
13
must be reasonable and realistic, and should avoid either of the two
extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so
extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent,
nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury.
29. Thus, this Revisional Court is of the considered opinion that the
maintenance allowance, fixed by the Court below, is not as per the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) as 25 % of
Rs. 1,25,000/- comes out to Rs. 31,250/- per month. As such, Rs. 30,000/-
, towards monthly maintenance allowance, in favour of revisionist, is just,
reasonable and realistic. Therefore, the judgment and order dated
01.12.2023, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in Case No. 829 of 2019 (Smt. Sadhana @
Sakshi vs. Jitendra Singh Soam), under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required to be modified to the extent that
now the opposite party no. 2 shall pay Rs. 30,000/- per month in favour of
revisionist no. 1 from the date of impugned judgment and order i.e.
01.12.2023.
30. However, at the same time, the respondent-husband cannot be
absolved from his liability and responsibility to maintain his son till he
attains the age of majority. Whatever be the dispute between the husband
and the wife, a child should not be made to suffer. The liability and
responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the
child/son attains the age of majority. It also cannot be disputed that the
son has a right to be maintained as per the status of his father. It is
reported that the mother is not earning anything. She is residing at her
parental house. Therefore, a reasonable/sufficient amount is required for
the maintenance of her son including his education etc. Admittedly,
revisionist no. 2 is a school going boy and at present is about 8 years of
age and therefore, keeping in view his living expenses, which includes
expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education extra
coaching class etc., this Court finds an amount of Rs. 17,500/- (which is
less than 15% of Rs. 1,25,000/- i.e. Rs. 18,750/-) towards monthly
maintenance in favour of the revisionist no. 2 is just, reasonable and
realistic and the impugned judgment and order is required to be modified
to the extent that now the opposite party no. 2 shall pay Rs. 17,500/- per
month in favour of revisionist no. 2 from the date of impugned judgment

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
14
and order i.e. 01.12.2023.
31. The present maintenance petition was filed by the revisionist in the
year 2019 and the aforesaid maintenance amount is calculated keeping in
view the salary of opposite party no. 2 allegedly received by him late in
the year 2022. Therefore, for deciding the amount of maintenance to be
paid from the date of filing of application to the date of judgment is fixed
to be Rs. 20,000/- per month for the revisionist No. 1 and Rs. 14,000/- per
month is fixed for revisionist no. 2, which amounts shall be paid from the
date of filing of the maintenance application.
32.
Consequently, the judgment and order dated 01.12.2023, passed
by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2,
Bulandshahar in Case No. 829 of 2019 (Smt. Sadhana @ Sakshi vs.
Jitendra Singh Som), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is modified to the extent that now the opposite party
no. 2 shall pay Rs. 47,500/- (Rs. 30,000/- for the revisionist no. 1 + Rs.
17,500/- for the revisionist no. 2) per month in favour of revisionist
nos. 1 and 2 from the date of impugned judgment and order i.e.
01.12.2023 and Rs. 34,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- for revisionist no. 1 + Rs.
14,000/- for revisionist no. 2) from the date of filing of application to
the date of judgment i.e. 01.12.2023.
33. Taking a humanitarian approach, this Court, also, provides that the
arrears of maintenance allowance shall be paid by the revisionist in six
monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 1st
July, 2026.
34. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance
allowance, as awarded by the learned Family Court, shall be calculated on
the basis of amount of maintenance allowance as fixed by this Court
herein above and after that if it is found that any amount has been paid in
excess, the same shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid.
35. In affidavit of Assets and Liabilities for non -agrarian deponents, it
was required to disclose any independent source of income of the
dependents including interest income, assets, pension, tax liability on such
income and any other detail, which were completely missing in the
present case. No medical record or disability certificate or summary of
previous details of hospitalization/ medical treatment was produced by the

CRLR No. 223 of 2024
15
opposite party no. 2 regarding medical expenses of his parents. Even
salary certificate clearly stating the designation with gross monthly
income, Form-16 for relevant period, details of perquisites and other
statutory benefits, income tax returns and copies of bank statement of all
accounts for last 3 years of opposite party no. 2 were not furnished by
him, which were required to be filed alongwith affidavit and only then, it
could be said that requisite affidavit in compliance to Rajnesh’s case
(supra) has been filed. These are the reasons that this Court came to
conclusion that the approach of learned trial Court was very casual in
nature. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated amongst all Judicial
Officers of State of U.P. through Registrar (compliance) to ensure
that the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha be
complied in its letter and spirit, as affidavits to be filed in compliance
of Apex Court’s direction is not a mere formality. The trial Courts
must be alive to be objects and reasons as well as spirit behind law of
maintenance as provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C./ 144 of BNSS, as
noted in this judgment. The learned trial Courts must make an
endevour to ensure filing of all necessary documents, which are
clearly indicated in prescribed proforma of Affidavit of Assets and
Liabilities by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra).
36. The present Criminal Revision No. 223 of 2024 stands allowed
accordingly and Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2024 stands dismissed .
37. A copy of this judgment be sent to Director, JTRI for sensitizing the
judicial officer on this issue in the light of direction issued by Hon’ble
Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha as well as observation made in this
judgment.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
May 15, 2026
Dhirendra/
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad