# Ashish Verma Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 26
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1681 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashish-verma-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51419
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 125 - Interim maintenance -
Validity of - In instant case, contention of
revisionist
that
respondent
No.2,
being
engaged in weaving and having obtained
specialization in English and Post-Graduate
degree,
is
earning
Rs.20,000/-
to
Rs.25,000/- per month - No documentary
evidence adduced in support thereof,
except for certain photographs showing
her dealing with cloth and embroidery
material - Revisionist shown his income as
Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month, yet
medical papers filed by him indicate he is
undergoing
specialized
treatment
at
reputed
Government
Hospitals
and
Medical Colleges involving substantial
expenditure
inconsistent
with
such
meagre monthly income - Medical record
shows history of alcohol dependency,
smoking and tobacco use, suggesting his
ailments are partly self-induced, for which
he cannot evade his obligation to maintain
his family - Respondent No.2, wife of
revisionist and living with their minor
children, dependent upon him - Even
if
respondent
No.2
earns
some
income through odd jobs, it does not
absolve revisionist of his statutory
duty to provide maintenance - Not
final
verdict,
revisionist
have
opportunity to establish his case at
trial - Interim maintenance is on
lower side, neither excessive nor
exorbitant,
minimum
amount
of
survival and sustenance of person,
require no reduction keeping in view
market conditions - Revision lacks
merit, dismissed. (Para 10, 16)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certificates were available to prove the age
of the accused, which is not the position in
the present case, the aforesaid observation
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
regarding the value and effect of a medical
test report is relevant for the present case and
this does not help the revisionist at all.

34. It appears that the revisionist is
attempting to take the statutory shelter under the
guise of being a minor and it is the Court's duty
to protect the confidence of a common man in
the institution entrusted with the administration
of justice by rejecting such a frivolous claim.

35. On the basis of the entire material
available on record, which has been discussed
above, the revisionist's claim of juvenility is
lacking in credibility and it has rightly been
rejected by the court.

36. There is no merit in the revision and
the revision is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 26
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1681 of 2023

Ashish Verma ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Shashank Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 125 - Interim maintenance -
Validity of - In instant case, contention of
revisionist
that
respondent
No.2,
being
engaged in weaving and having obtained
specialization in English and Post-Graduate
degree,
is
earning
Rs.20,000/-
to
Rs.25,000/- per month - No documentary
evidence adduced in support thereof,
except for certain photographs showing
her dealing with cloth and embroidery
material - Revisionist shown his income as
Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month, yet
medical papers filed by him indicate he is
undergoing
specialized
treatment
at
reputed
Government
Hospitals
and
Medical Colleges involving substantial
expenditure
inconsistent
with
such
meagre monthly income - Medical record
shows history of alcohol dependency,
smoking and tobacco use, suggesting his
ailments are partly self-induced, for which
he cannot evade his obligation to maintain
his family - Respondent No.2, wife of
revisionist and living with their minor
children, dependent upon him - Even
if
respondent
No.2
earns
some
income through odd jobs, it does not
absolve revisionist of his statutory
duty to provide maintenance - Not
final
verdict,
revisionist
have
opportunity to establish his case at
trial - Interim maintenance is on
lower side, neither excessive nor
exorbitant,
minimum
amount
of
survival and sustenance of person,
require no reduction keeping in view
market conditions - Revision lacks
merit, dismissed. (Para 10, 16)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajnesh Vs Neha (2020) 13 SCR 1093

2. Shailja & anr. Vs Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC
199

3. Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. Vs Anil Kachwaha,
(2014) 16 SCC 715

4. Sanjay Damodar Kale Vs Kalyani Sanjay Kale,
2020,
SCC
OnLine
Bom
694
2 All. Ashish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
27
5. Chander Prakash Bodhraj Vs Shila Rani
Chander, AIR 1968 Delhi 174

6. Shamima Farooqui Vs Shahid Khan, (2015) 5
SCC 705

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shashank Tripathi,
learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
AGA for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

2. As per the office report, notice was
duly served on opposite party No.2 but
none appeared on her behalf to press
present criminal revision.

3. Instant criminal revision has been
preferred against the impugned order dated
05.01.2023, passed by leaned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court No.2,
Kanpur Nagar, in Maintenance Case
No.875 of 2021 (Smt. Arti and 2 others
vs. Ashish Verma), under Section 125
Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, learned
Principal
Judge
has
allowed
the
application for interim maintenance
filed by the applicants and has awarded
Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant
No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to each
of her minor children as interim
maintenance, which is payable on 10th
of each calender month.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of
present revision are that the applicant No.1
Smt. Arti Soni, who is respondent No.2 in
present revision filed an application for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Kanpur Nagar with averment that opposite
party Ashish Verma is her husband and
applicant Nos.2 and 3 are minor children
born out of their wedlock. Applicant No.1
was married with opposite party on
21.6.2021. Their marriage was solemnized
according to the Hindu rites and rituals and
parties belongs to Hindu community. She
was send off to her matrimonial home after
marriage and one son and one daughter
born out of their wedlock with her husband.
However, she was subjected to matrimonial
cruelty soon after her marriage by opposite
party and his family members due to non
fulfilment of demand of dowry of Rs.1 lac
cash, one gold chain, LCD TV and fridge.
She was even deprived of square meal in
her matrimonial home. She was given
intensive beating by opposite party and his
family members. However, she suffered all
these misdeeds of opposite party with
expectation that things will be better in
course of time. In the evening of 11.6.2021,
her brother Sonu and sister-in-law Babita
arrived at her matrimonial home to take her
back to join a festive occasion at their place
but she was not permitted to go to her
parental place and family members of
opposite party misbehaved and abused her
brother
and
sister-in-law
and
also
threatened the applicant with life. Her
brother and sister-in-law were thrashed and
beaten by her husband and his family
members when they were off to their
residence. She was again roughed up and
assaulted badly by her husband and his
family members, in which her minor
daughter Vaishnavi also got severely
injured. They snatched her ornaments and
cash. She anyhow got herself saved and
went to her home. Her in-laws are affluent
people and local police is under their
influence. They did not take any action
against them. The opposite party is engaged
in trade of gold and silver and also earns
around Rs.1 lac per month from house rent.
The applicant No.1 is not having any
source of income to maintain herself as
well as her minor children. She prayed for
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to
be awarded to each of the applicants.

5. Learned court below summoned the
opposite party. He appeared and filed an
objection
on
application
of
interim
maintenance, in which he denied the
allegations
made
in
application
for
maintenance. He has stated that he himself
is a victim of high handedness of his wife
and her family members. The applicant is a
highly educated lady. She has taken course
of weaving and English, from which she
earns around Rs.20,000/- per month. The
opposite party is not having any regularly
source of income. He is being victimized
by his wife due to lack of money. Even he
is ready to keep his wife and her children
together with him. He is suffering from
severe ailments and no money is left with
him to provide interim maintenance. He
was assaulted by brothers and associates of
applicant No.1. The marriage of the
opposite party and applicant no.1 was
solemnized
on
21.6.2014.
She
has
concealed her income. He has a lodged an
FIR against the applicant and her family
members on 11.6.2021, which registered as
NCR No.97 of 2021. He is under educated
person and only a Class 8th pass out.

6.

Learned
court
below
after
considering the pleadings and version of
the parties, concluded that the opposite
party has failed to adduce any documentary
evidence in support of his version that the
applicant No.1 earns around Rs.20,000/- to
25,000/- per month by engaging in business
of weaving. He has not filed any document
with regard to his ailment and treatment
after 8.6.2022. This is admitted fact that
opposite party is husband of applicant no.1
and applicant nos.2 and 3 are his children.
The evidence of parties is yet to come in
main case. The opposite party is duty
bound to provide maintenance to his wife
and children under law. With these
findings, the court below has awarded the
maintenance to the applicants, as above. It
is also directed in impugned order that any
amount obtained by the applicants towards
maintenance
will
be
liable
to
be
adjustment.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the revisionist has filed
supplementary affidavit, in which details of
his ailment and treatment are mentioned.
He has filed a number of medical
documents in support of his ailment and
treatment. He has filed an affidavit of assets
and liabilities before the court below in
compliance of directions of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2020) 13 SCR
1093, in which he has clarified that he is a
daily wage labourer and his monthly
income is around Rs.3000/- per month,
which also spends in his treatment. He is
still undergoing treatment for his ailment.
He is not having any other source of
income. He has also shown his old parents,
aged around 60 to 68 years, as dependants,
apart from his wife and two children. A
copy of affidavit dated 22.9.2022 has been
filed alongwith supplementary affidavit. He
has filed medical documents in support of
his illness as annexure to supplementary
affidavit, which reveal that he is still
undergoing treatment for neuropsychiatric
ailment at Medical College, Kanpur and a
neuropsychiatric physician in Lucknow
namely, Dr. R.K. Thukral. He has been
undergoing
treatment
at
Lucknow
Neuropsychiatric Centre since 24.1.2023.
He has filed medical papers up to May,
2023, which show that he is suffering from
severe neurological disorder and spends
substantial amount towards his treatment
and survival. He was also admitted in a
private hospital in Kanpur from 29.4.2023
2 All. Ashish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
29
to 2.5.2023 with complaint of hand
tremors, insomnia and jerking movements.
He further submitted that the learned court
below in impugned order has circumvented
the legal objections and submissions made
by the revisionist as opposite party.
Learned court below failed to consider the
material available on record in proper
perspective and accepted the version of the
applicants at face value. The impugned
order is perverse and is liable to be set
aside. The revisionist is not able to pay
interim maintenance awarded in impugned
order to the applicants.

8. Per contra, learned AGA submitted
that the learned court below has awarded
maintenance to the applicants on lower
side, which is minimum amount for their
sustenance. The factum that applicant No.1
is legally wedded wife and applicant Nos.2
and 3 are their offspring is not disputed.
The revisionist is duty bound to maintain
his wife and minor children under law. The
impugned order warrants no interference in
present criminal revision.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs.
Neha (2020) 13 SCR 1093, observed as
under:-

"Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Chapter IX of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance
of wife, children and parents in a summary
proceeding. Maintenance under Section
125 of the Cr.P.C. may be claimed by a
person
irrespective
of
the
religious
community to which they belong. The
purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
is to provide immediate relief to an
applicant. An application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. is predicated on two conditions
: (i) the husband has sufficient means; and
(ii) "neglects" to maintain his wife, who is
unable to maintain herself. In such a case,
the husband may be directed by the
Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the
wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is
awarded on the basis of the financial
capacity of the husband and other relevant
factors.

The remedy provided by Section
125 is summary in nature, and the
substantive
disputes
with
respect
to
dissolution of marriage can be determined
by a civil court / family court in an
appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1956.

In Bhagwan Dutt v Kamla Devi,
the Supreme Court held that under Section
125(1) Cr.P.C. only a wife who is "unable
to maintain herself" is entitled to seek
maintenance. The Court held :

"19.
The
object
of
these
provisions being to prevent vagrancy and
destitution, the Magistrate has to find out
as to what is required by the wife to
maintain a standard of living which is
neither luxurious nor penurious, but is
modestly consistent with the status of the
family. The needs and requirements of the
wife for such moderate living can be fairly
determined, only if her separate income,
also, is taken into account together with the
earnings
of
the
husband
and
his
commitments." (emphasis supplied)

Prior to the amendment of
Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on
the amount which could be awarded as
maintenance, being Rs. 500 "in the whole".
In view of the rising costs of living and
inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs. 500 was
done away by the 2001 Amendment Act.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Amendment Act states that the wife had
to wait for several years before being
granted maintenance. Consequently, the
Amendment Act introduced an express
provision
for
grant
of
"interim
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintenance". The Magistrate was vested
with the power to order the respondent to
make a monthly allowance towards interim
maintenance during the pendency of the
petition.

Under sub-section (2) of Section
125, the Court is conferred with the
discretion
to
award
payment
of
maintenance either from the date of the
order, or from the date of the application.

Under the third proviso to the
amended Section 125, the application for
grant of interim maintenance must be
disposed of as far as possible within sixty
days' from the date of service of notice on
the respondent.

The amended Section 125 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 allow 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. - 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
2 All. Ashish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
31
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.

(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."
(emphasis supplied)

In Chaturbhuj v Sitabai 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 of the Cr.P.C.
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.

Proceedings under Section 125 of
the Cr.P.C. are summary in nature. In
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena & Ors.8
this Court held that Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. 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.

The issue whether presumption of
marriage arises when parties are in a livein relationship for a long period of time,
which would give rise to a claim u/S. 125
Cr.P.C. came up for consideration in
Chanmuniya v Virendra Kumar Singh
Kushwaha & Anr. 9 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
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 pre-condition
for grant of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C.
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.

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 u/S. 125 Cr.P.C.
such strict standard of proof is not
necessary.

10. In instant case, the main
contention
raised
on
behalf
of
the
revisionist is that the respondent No.2 is
earning income by engaging in profession
of weaving of cloths. She has also done
specialization in English. She has obtained
Post Graduation Degree. However, there is
no document in support of the version of
the revisionist that respondent No.2 earns
around Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per
month by her occupation. He has filed
photocopies of some photographs, in which
respondent No.2 is shown to have been
dealing in some cloths alongwith material
used in embroidery. The revisionist has
shown
his
monthly
income
around
Rs.3000/- to 4000/- per month but the
medical papers filed by him alongwith
revision memo and supplementary affidavit
itself
show
that
he
is
undergoing
specialized treatments in various reputed
Government Hospitals/Medical Colleges as
well
as
before
highly
reputed
neuropsychiatric in Lucknow and Kanpur,
which
entails
substantial
expenditure,
which is normally not affordable by a
person of such meagre monthly income.
The ailment detected by the Doctor
suggests that he is having history of
excessive alcohol dependency alongwith
smoking and use of tobacco. Thus, it may
be inferred that the ailments from which the
revisionist is suffering are to some extent
self-induced due to bad habits and for that
he cannot shirk his family responsibilities.
This is admitted fact that the respondents
are wife and minor children of the
revisionist, who are dependant to him only
due to the fact that the respondent No.2 is
deriving some income by engaging in some
odd jobs, the revisionist cannot be
exempted
from
his
responsibility
to
maintain his wife and minor children. At
the stage of interim maintenance, the brief
pleadings
supported
by
affidavit
are
considered. This is not a final verdict and
revisionist will have opportunity to prove
his case at the final stage. The Courts have
held that if the wife is earning, it cannot
operate as a bar from being awarded
maintenance by the husband. The Courts
have provided guidance on this issue in the
following judgments.

11. In Shailja & Anr. v Khobbanna,
(2018) 12 SCC 199, Hon'ble Apex Court
held that merely because the wife is
capable of earning, it would not be a
sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance
awarded by the Family Court. The Court
has to determine whether the income of
the wife is sufficient to enable her to
maintain herself, in accordance with the
lifestyle
of
her
husband
in
the
matrimonial home. Sustenance does not
mean, and cannot be allowed to mean
mere survival.
2 All. Ashish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
33

12. In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v
Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, the
wife had a postgraduate degree, and was
employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The
husband raised a contention that since the
wife had sufficient income, she would not
require financial assistance from the
husband. The Supreme Court repelled this
contention, and held that merely because
the wife was earning some income, it could
not be a ground to reject her claim for
maintenance. The Bombay High Court in
Sanjay Damodar Kale v Kalyani Sanjay
Kale, 2020, SCC OnLine Bom 694, while
relying upon the judgment in Sunita
Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the
mere potential to earn, nor the actual
earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is
sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
An able-bodied husband must be presumed
to be capable of earning sufficient money
to maintain his wife and children, and
cannot contend that he is not in a position
to earn sufficiently to maintain his family,
as held by the Delhi High Court in
Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani
Chander, AIR 1968 Delhi 174. The onus is
on the husband to establish with necessary
material that there are sufficient grounds to
show that he is unable to maintain the
family, and discharge his legal obligations
for reasons beyond his control. If the
husband does not disclose the exact amount
of his income, an adverse inference may be
drawn by the Court.

13. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shamima
Farooqui v Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC
705, cited the judgment in Chander
Prakash (supra) with approval, and held
that the obligation of the husband to
provide maintenance stands on a higher
pedestal than the wife.

14. Maintenance of minor children

The living expenses of the child
would include expenses for food, clothing,
residence, medical expenses, education of
children. Extra coaching classes or any
other
vocational
training
courses
to
complement the basic education must be
factored in, while awarding child support.
Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to
be awarded for extra-curricular / coaching
classes, and not an overly extravagant
amount which may be claimed. Education
expenses of the children must be normally
borne by the father. If the wife is working
and earning sufficiently, the expenses may
be shared proportionately between the
parties.

15. Serious disability or ill health

Serious disability or ill health of a
spouse, child / children from the marriage /
dependant relative who require constant
care and recurrent expenditure, would also
be
a
relevant
consideration
while
quantifying maintenance.

16. On the basis of foregoing
discussion, this Court is of the considered
view
that
the
amount
of
interim
maintenance, which is to the tune of
Rs.3,000/- to wife and Rs.2,000/- per
month to each of the minor children is on
lower side. It is neither excessive nor
exorbitant. In fact, this is the minimum
amount of survival and sustenance of a
person and it require no reduction keeping
in veiw the present market conditions. The
revision is devoid of merits and it deserves
to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, present criminal
revision stands dismissed.

18.

However,
the
arrears
of
maintenance from the date of filing of
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application to December, 2023 will be
payable in four equal monthly instalments,
out of which first instalment will be due
from 10th February, 2024 and apart from
that the revisionist will keep on paying
maintenance in aggregate to the tune of
Rs.7,000/- per month to the private
respondents from January, 2024 on regular
basis, till further order of trial court, as
directed in the impugned order.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 34
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2246 of 2023

Bharat Singh Kushwaha ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ajay Sengar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Gaurav Singh Tomar, Sri Subhash
Gosain

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Indian
Succession Act, 1925 - Section 372 -
Revisionist moved application alleging
that his 32-year-old son, living separately
with his wife and children, returned home
at 10:30 p.m., later found unconscious
with injury marks on his neck - In hospital
where he was declared dead, postmortem
conducted through police of police station
- It is alleged that deceased's wife
frequently
quarreled
with
him
over
sending half of his income to her parental
home, on date of incident, had insulted
him, leading him to commit suicide by
hanging - Despite applications to local
police, no F.I.R. registered - Impugned
order - Held, after her husband's death,
opposite party no.2 moved application to
Bank Manager requesting payment of
deposits not be made to revisionist, as
nominee of account - She thereafter filed
Case
under
Succession
Act
seeking
succession certificate in respect of said
deposits for herself and her minor son - To
pressurize her, revisionist approached
S.P., filed application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
against her - Postmortem report of
deceased revealed ligature marks but no
other bodily injury - No documentary
evidence
produced
by
revisionist
to
substantiate his allegation of harassment
by opposite party no.2 leading to suicide -
Last rites of deceased performed by
revisionist's
family,
no
suicide
note
recovered to support alleged allegation -
Revisionist
neither
mentioned
nor
produced any affidavit in support of
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., nor filed
certified copy thereof, as mandated by
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Priyanka
Srivastava (infra). (Para 4, 11 to 13)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & anr. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors., 2015 (6) SCC 287, Criminal Appeal No.
781 of 2012, (Paras 29 to 31)

2. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. & Others,
(2014) 2 SCC 1, (Paras 49, 53)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,
J.)

Heard
Sri Ajay
Sengar,
learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Subhash
Gosain, Advocate, holding brief of Sri
Gaurav Singh Tomar, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.
for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed
against
impugned
order
dated