# Gaurav Gupta Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 878
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5898 of 2024
- **Bench:** Madan Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gaurav-gupta-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54829
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

G.A., Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, Puja
Bhargava Singh

Issue for Consideration
10 All. Gaurav Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
Whether the order passed by the Family Court
under
Section
125
Cr.P.C.,
directing
the
revisionist-husband to pay ₹20,000/- per month
each to the wife and minor daughter as
maintenance,
suffered
from
illegality
or
perversity, particularly with respect to
(i) the finding that the wife was living separately
for sufficient cause,
(ii) assessment of the income and earning
capacity of the revisionist, and
(iii) the conclusion that the wife was unable to
maintain herself.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125
- Maintenance - Wife and minor child -
Separate residence for sufficient cause -
Educational
qualification
of
wife
-
Capacity to earn - Concealment of income
by husband - Determination of means -
Quantum of maintenance - Revisional
jurisdiction - No interference warranted.

Held:
The relationship between the parties as husband
and wife and the paternity of opposite party
no.3 as the minor daughter of the revisionist
being admitted, no dispute survived on that
aspect. [Para 9]

The Family Court recorded a categorical finding
that the wife was living separately from her
husband
for
sufficient
reasons,
including
persistent demand of dowry, cruelty, mental
harassment,
and
coercion
for
fetal
sex
determination. The wife's testimony on these
aspects
remained
unchallenged
in
crossexamination, and the finding did not suffer from
any perversity. [Paras 10-11]

Merely because the wife was educated and had
worked prior to marriage did not disentitle her
from claiming maintenance, particularly when
there was no reliable evidence to establish that
she was presently earning or capable of
maintaining herself and the minor child. The
Family Court rightly relied upon the settled
principle
that
earning
some
amount
or
possessing educational qualifications is not a
ground to deny maintenance. [Paras 12-14]

On the question of income of the revisionist, the
Court found that the revisionist, a director in a
private company, had failed to disclose his true
income, assets, and financial affairs, and had
attempted to understate his earnings by
selective filing of income tax returns and
documents.
The
documentary
evidence
produced by the wife regarding company
records
and
salary
particulars
remained
unrebutted. [Paras 15-17, 25-27]

The Family Court was justified in drawing an
adverse inference against the revisionist for
concealment of income, and in holding that he
had sufficient means to maintain his wife and
minor daughter, in view of his status, position,
and control over the company affairs. [Paras 17,
25-28]

The principles laid down by the Supreme Court
in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, Bhuvan
Mohan Singh v. Meena, Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai,
and Rajnesh v. Neha were correctly applied by
the Family Court while determining the quantum
of maintenance, keeping in view the standard of
living, status of the parties, and the object of
Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and
vagrancy. [Paras 18-23]

The maintenance awarded at the rate of
₹20,000/- per month each to the wife and minor
daughter was held to be reasonable and
commensurate
with
the
means
of
the
revisionist.
No
illegality,
perversity,
or
jurisdictional
error
was
found
warranting
interference
in
revisional
jurisdiction.
The
revision was accordingly dismissed. [Paras 2930]

Revision dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 -
relied on; Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025 - relied on;
Bhuvan Mohan Singh v. Meena and
Others, 2014 Cri LJ 3979 - relied on;
Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 -
relied
on;
Sunita
Kachwaha
v.
Anil
Kachwaha, AIR 2015 SC 554 - relied on;
Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani
Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Del 174 -
referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code of Criminal Pr

## Text

_Characters 0–39,921 of 44,375. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39921 for what follows._

878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
part
of
a
repetitive
pattern
of
similar
adjudicated
offenses
committed by child and
whether
implications
have been made by same
complainant;

(ix) Whether the
child
has
previously
absconded from the legal
custody of a juvenile
correctional center;

(x) The degree
of intellectual disability
or
mental illness
of
child, if any;

(xi) The child's
school
record
and
education;

35. These guidelines shall be
followed by all the Juvenile Justice
Boards/Children's courts while making
preliminary assessment of a child under
Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and
it should be reflected in their orders.

36.
For
the
reasons
given
hereinabove, the impugned orders passed
by the J.J. Board and the Children's Court
are not in accordance with law, hence, the
preliminary assessment of the present child
in conflict with law requires assessment
afresh by J.J. Board, as contemplated under
section 15(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015. The
assessment of child (revisionist) shall be
done on all the parameters/ guidelines
stated hereinabove. Since the Apex Court
in the case of Child in Conflict with Law
through his Mother Vs. State of Karnatka,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 798 has held that
period of three months provided under
Section 14 (3) of the Act for the purpose of
conducting psychological test of the child
is not mandatory.

37. The order dated 30.11.2023
passed by Additional and Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Prayagraj, as
well as order dated 04.12.2020 passed by
the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj, in
Sessions Trial No.43 of 2021 are quashed
and set aside.

38. In the result, the criminal
revision is allowed.

39. Let a copy of this order be
communicated
to
all
the
J.J.
Boards/Children's courts in the State for
necessary
compliance
by
Registrar
(Compliance), within two weeks.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 878
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5898 of 2024

Gaurav Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Atul Kumar Shahi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, Puja
Bhargava Singh

Issue for Consideration
10 All. Gaurav Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
Whether the order passed by the Family Court
under
Section
125
Cr.P.C.,
directing
the
revisionist-husband to pay ₹20,000/- per month
each to the wife and minor daughter as
maintenance,
suffered
from
illegality
or
perversity, particularly with respect to
(i) the finding that the wife was living separately
for sufficient cause,
(ii) assessment of the income and earning
capacity of the revisionist, and
(iii) the conclusion that the wife was unable to
maintain herself.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125
- Maintenance - Wife and minor child -
Separate residence for sufficient cause -
Educational
qualification
of
wife
-
Capacity to earn - Concealment of income
by husband - Determination of means -
Quantum of maintenance - Revisional
jurisdiction - No interference warranted.

Held:
The relationship between the parties as husband
and wife and the paternity of opposite party
no.3 as the minor daughter of the revisionist
being admitted, no dispute survived on that
aspect. [Para 9]

The Family Court recorded a categorical finding
that the wife was living separately from her
husband
for
sufficient
reasons,
including
persistent demand of dowry, cruelty, mental
harassment,
and
coercion
for
fetal
sex
determination. The wife's testimony on these
aspects
remained
unchallenged
in
crossexamination, and the finding did not suffer from
any perversity. [Paras 10-11]

Merely because the wife was educated and had
worked prior to marriage did not disentitle her
from claiming maintenance, particularly when
there was no reliable evidence to establish that
she was presently earning or capable of
maintaining herself and the minor child. The
Family Court rightly relied upon the settled
principle
that
earning
some
amount
or
possessing educational qualifications is not a
ground to deny maintenance. [Paras 12-14]

On the question of income of the revisionist, the
Court found that the revisionist, a director in a
private company, had failed to disclose his true
income, assets, and financial affairs, and had
attempted to understate his earnings by
selective filing of income tax returns and
documents.
The
documentary
evidence
produced by the wife regarding company
records
and
salary
particulars
remained
unrebutted. [Paras 15-17, 25-27]

The Family Court was justified in drawing an
adverse inference against the revisionist for
concealment of income, and in holding that he
had sufficient means to maintain his wife and
minor daughter, in view of his status, position,
and control over the company affairs. [Paras 17,
25-28]

The principles laid down by the Supreme Court
in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, Bhuvan
Mohan Singh v. Meena, Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai,
and Rajnesh v. Neha were correctly applied by
the Family Court while determining the quantum
of maintenance, keeping in view the standard of
living, status of the parties, and the object of
Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and
vagrancy. [Paras 18-23]

The maintenance awarded at the rate of
₹20,000/- per month each to the wife and minor
daughter was held to be reasonable and
commensurate
with
the
means
of
the
revisionist.
No
illegality,
perversity,
or
jurisdictional
error
was
found
warranting
interference
in
revisional
jurisdiction.
The
revision was accordingly dismissed. [Paras 2930]

Revision dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 -
relied on; Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025 - relied on;
Bhuvan Mohan Singh v. Meena and
Others, 2014 Cri LJ 3979 - relied on;
Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 -
relied
on;
Sunita
Kachwaha
v.
Anil
Kachwaha, AIR 2015 SC 554 - relied on;
Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani
Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Del 174 -
referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Wife and minor child; Separate
residence for sufficient cause; Concealment of
income;
Means
of
husband;
Educational
qualification of wife; Capacity to maintain;
Quantum
of
maintenance;
Revisional
jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 08.10.2024 passed
by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 203 of
2022 (Ritika Gupta and Another v. Gaurav
Gupta), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., District
Kanpur Nagar.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Atul Kumar Shahi
For the State: Learned A.G.A.
For Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3: Ms. Puja
Bhargava Singh, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh
Paliwal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,
J.)

1. The Written submissions filed by
the learned counsel for the revisionist and
the learned counsel for opposite party nos.
2 and 3 are taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shahi,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms.
Puja Bhargava Singh and Mr. Santosh
Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned
A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed
by the revisionist under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the
judgment and order dated 8th October,
2024 passed by the Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur
Nagar in Case No. 203 of 2022 (Ritika
Gupta & Another Vs. Gaurav Gupta) under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. District-Kanpur Nagar,
whereby the trial court while allowing the
application filed by opposite party nos.2
and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has
directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 20,000/-
per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and
Rs.20,000/- per month to opposite party
no.3 (daughter) i.e. total Rs. 40,000/- per
month towards maintenance allowance
from the date of filing of instant
application.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that
marriage of opposite party no.2 was
solemnized with the revisionist on 10th
December, 2018 in accordance with the
Hindu Rites and Rituals. From the
aforesaid wedlock, one daughter i.e.
opposite party no.3 was born. After some
time, for the reasons best known to them,
the relationship between the husband and
wife i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2
became
strained
and
incompatible.
Thereafter, the revisionist filed divorce
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, in the court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, which
was numbered as Case No. 1341 of 2021.
Opposite party no.2 also filed a petition
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Whereafter she lodged a first information
report against the revisionist on 9th August,
2021 under Section 498-A and Section 3/4
D.P. Act at Police Station-Swaroop Nagar,
District
Kanpur
Nagar.
Ultimately,
opposite party no.2 filed the instant
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on
14th February, 2022.

(5) The arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the revisionist are as
under:

(i) (a) marriage of the revisionist
with opposite party no.2 which was
10 All. Gaurav Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
solemnized on 10th December, 2018, was
an arrange marriage. Before marriage, the
opposite party no.2 was suffering from
anxiety problem and after first day of
marriage she fell sick since due to which
she was taken to the hospital by the
revisionist and after treatment she was
becoming better but her medicine for the
said anxiety problem was going on
continuously. Meanwhile, she got pregnant
and delivered a child on 14th August, 2020.
Since the applicant's anxiety problem was
not getting cured, due to which the
relationship between both of them became
strained and resultant she left the house of
the revisionist and started living separately
from her husband i.e. revisionist at her
maternal house along with opposite party
no.3 without any reason. The anxiety
disorder by which opposite party no.2 was
suffering has been admitted by the opposite
party no.2 herself in her application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. and by her father, by
means of an affidavit given before the trial
court.

(b) it is admitted by opposite
party no.2 in her affidavit which is at page70 of the paper book that the revisionist is
earning Rs. 6 lakhs per annum as per the
returns of the company in the year 2020
meaning thereby that the monthly net
salary of the revisionist was Rs. 50,000/-
per month in 2020 being director of the
company, namely, Rakshit Engineering
Works Private Limited.

(ii) The opposite party no.2 has
herself admitted that she is well qualified
lady having degree of B.Com and Diploma
in Interior Designing and before marriage
and till the delivery of her daughter i.e.
opposite party no.3, she was working and
earning a handsome amount. She had also
filed Income Tax Return which shows that
her annual income was Rs. 3 lakh and as
per the balance sheet, Rs. 5 lakhs were
shown in her bank account.

(iii) As per the documents of the
company filed by the opposite party no.2
before the trial court, in 2020 the salary of
the revisionist was Rs. 6 lakhs and at that
time the company was earning profit.
Balance sheet of 2023 of the company,
which is at page 155 of the paper book,
shows that the revisionist was getting
salary of Rs. 2,40,000/- per year as the
company was suffered loss. According to
the Income Tax Returns of the revisionist
of the years 2023-2024, 2022-2023, 20212022, which are at page no. 199 onwards of
the paper book produced by the opposite
party no.2 before the trial court, the
revisionist has submitted his Income Tax
Return of Rs. 4,74,000/- in which the salary
of the revisionist is shown as Rs. 2,40,000/-
. Similarly the ITR of 2022-2023 of the
revisionist shows that he has submitted the
ITR of Rs. 5,03, 000/- showing his salary
Rs. 2,40,000/-.

(iv). The trial court has not
considered the averments made by the
revisionist in his affidavit in which he has
mentioned that in 2022-2023, his salary
was Rs. 20,000/- per month and in 20192020, his salary was Rs. 50,000/- per
month,
whereas the trial court
has
considered the earning of the revisionist as
i.e. Rs. 6 lakhs per annum in 2019-2020
and the monthly income of the revisionist
would be Rs.50,000/-, even though the trial
court
has
miscalculated
itself
while
awarding
the
monthly
maintenance
allowance in favour of opposite party nos.
2 and 3 under the impugned judgment
which is not 25% of the net income of the
revisionist.
The
trial
court
has
not
considered the fact that the company in
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which the revisionist is working as one of
the Director is a separate legal entity of
which
the
director
has
received
remuneration only from the profit of the
company and because of the same when the
company was in loss, in the year 20222023, the salary of the revisionist was Rs.
2,40,000/- per annum.

On the above premise, learned
counsel for the revisionist submits that
since
the
total
amount
of
monthly
allowance as awarded by the trial court
under the impugned judgment i.e. total Rs.
40,000/- per month in favour of opposite
party nos. 2 and 3 (Rs. 20,000/- per month
each) is too excessive, exorbitant and not
commensurate with the net income of the
revisionist which is de hors the settled legal
position of the Honble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and
Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari
reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129 and also in
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200, therefore,
the same is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other-hand, the learned
counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and
the learned A.G.A. for the State have
opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the revisionist by
submitting that the trial court has not
committed any illegality or infirmity in
passing the impugned judgment and order
while awarding Rs. 20,000/- per month to
opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs.20,000/-
per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter)
i.e. total Rs. 40,000/- per month towards
maintenance allowance from the date of
filing of instant application, so as to
warrant any interference by this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Besides the above, learned counsel
for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have
following submissions:

(i). In the marriage of opposite
party no.2 with the revisionist, the parents
of opposite party no.2 gave much dowry
beyond their capacity from which the
revisionist and his parents were not
satisfied. After some time of marriage, for
additional demand of dowry, she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her
in-laws including the revisionist even
though she faced all things for saving her
marriage that cause anxiety problem to her.
When opposite party no.2 was got pregnant
she
was
forced
to
undergo
sex
determination test which she denied and
because of the same there was continuous
conflicts in her matrimonial house. When
she delivered a child, her in-laws including
the revisionist and her mother-in-law
started torturing her for not having a boy
and in the same process, her mother-in-law
started administering her some Babaji's
powder to give birth to a boy. After
consumption
of
the
same,
she
felt
exhausted and tired.

(ii) it is no doubt true that
opposite party no.2 was working in INFID,
Kanpur Nagar at a salary of Rs. 10,000/-
per month and was also teaching at
Gulmohar
School,
Kanpur
Nagar.
However,
before
the
marriage,
the
revisionist compelled the opposite party
no.2 to either quit her job or leave the
prospect of getting married, as such,
opposite party no.2 resigned from her job
weighing her bright career for saving her
married life. At the time of delivery of
child when the opposite party no.2 came to
her parental house, the in-laws including
the revisionist also came there and assuring
that after some time, they would take
opposite party no.2 along with her daughter
with them at her matrimonial house.
However, since they were not satisfied with
the dowry as given by the parents of
10 All. Gaurav Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883
opposite party no.2 and also with birth of a
girl child, her in-laws along with revisionist
connived with intentions to not take her
back and filed a false complaint against the
opposite party no.2 on the Chief Minister
Portal. Several efforts were made by the
parents and other family members of
opposite party no.2 to save her marriage
relation for reconciling the dispute with the
revisionist but all efforts went in vein. The
revisionist coming out with his true
motives filed a case under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. The aforesaid aspect
of the matter has been considered by the
trial court while passing the impugned
judgment and has rightly come to the
conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is
living separately from her husband i.e.
revisionist along with her daughter at her
parental house with sufficient reasons.

(iii). After filing the instant
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by
opposite party nos. 2 and 3, the revisionist
was required to file his affidavit qua his
income. Though the opposite party no. 2
has disclosed each and every fact, the
revisionist preferred to not to file his
objection / reply but only his Affidavit of
Assets
and
Liabilities
whereby
he
concealed
the
several
material
facts
regarding
his
income.
Though
the
revisionist was required to file his Income
Tax Returns of one year before marriage, at
the time of separation and at the time of
institution of the application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. but he deliberately not filed the
income tax returns of the said period and
filed the same of other periods. He has also
not filed or disclosed the other income as
per point no.6 of the affidavit like rent,
interest, share debentures, FDRs, Mutual
Funds, Stock Agriculture or Income from
other sources. He has also not filed his
statements of bank account. The ITRs filed
by the revisionist are of irrelevant period in
order to conceal his real income which
cannot be relied upon.

(iv). ITRs of the opposite party
no. 2 which has been filed by the
revisionist as Annexure No.3 to the present
revision, which was for the Assessment
Year 2019-2020, whereby the gross income
of the opposite party no. 2 was shown to be
Rs. 3,09,772/- per year, was exactly not
filed by opposite party no.2 but the same
was filed by the revisionist himself, who
also had the password of ITR filing and the
number which was linked to AADHAR and
PAN card of the opposite party no. 2 and
the said phone number and password was
in his possession till august 2022. That fact
is evident from 14th and 15th lines of his
cross-examination while saying "ररदतक द्व र जो
मोब इल नंबर यूज़ दकय ज त थ वह मेरे प स थ दजससे मैंने
OTP खोल कर िेख ".

(v). In the cross-examination, the
revisionist has stated that he lives with his
mother and father and he do not know as to
from which date he is the Director of the
Company. In line no. 14 of his crossexamination, he has stated that he sign
anywhere upon the direction of his parents.
The finances of the company of which he is
the director are being looked into by his
father. On page no. 90 (of revision) he has
stated that he has no idea whether he has
any share in the company or not. At page91 of the paper book, after seeing his
affidavit of assets and liabilities, which is
paper no. 17/2 before the trial court, he
admitted that he is an income tax payee and
in subsequent lines, he has stated that he
has filed his ITR at the time of separation
and also at the time of filing the instant
application under section 125 Cr.P.C.
However, he has not filed the balance
sheets of his company. From the aforesaid,
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
it is crystal clear that he has deliberately
concealed his income. The opposite party
no. 2 has filed salaries of the directors of
the company including the revisionist and
his father along with short counter affidavit
from which it is clear that on the one hand,
when the company was in loss, the salary
of the revisionist would decrease and on the
other hand, the salary of his father, who
was also one of the director of the
company,
would
increase
i.e.
from
Rs.9,00,000/- per annum to Rs. 12,00,000/-
per annum. From the list of depositors of
Rakshit Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd, which
is at page no. 123 of the short counter, it is
clear that the revisionist to save him from
the tax liability and to keep the court in
dark has nowhere shown that he is the main
boss "Gaurav Gupta HUF" which had
opening balance of Rs. 13,98,277/- as on
1st March, 2023 and the interest on the
same was deliberately concealed. From the
document enclosed along with the short
counter affidavit where there is a list of
amount received from Director or Relative
of Director as on date 31-03-2023. The
opening amount of the revisionist and the
company was Rs.36,57,530/- and in the
same financial year, he has deposited Rs.
67,55,000/- in the company in which he
earned an interest of Rs. 3,22,630/-.

(vi). If it is accepted that his
annual income was Rs. 2,40,000/-, then
how had he deposited Rs. 67,55,000/- in
the financial year 2023. On a simple
calculation of movable assets of the
revisionist and his company, he has capital
of around Rs. 1 crore and on calculation of
simple rate of interest at Rs. 7.5% without
including the capital of the revisionist, he
can earn interest of Rs. 7,50,000/- per year.
Apart from these movable assets, the
revisionist has 104000 shares in the
company at NAV of Rs. 10/- each. Thus,
his total shares in the company is
amounting to Rs. 10,40,000/-. On basis of
his shares, apart from salary and various
benefits, as available to a director, he is
entitled to get profit of 5% in the company.
Thus, from all aspects it is evident that the
total income of the revisionist is around Rs.
16,00,000/- per annum. Even otherwise, the
revisionist who is main boss of Gaurav
Gupta HUF i.e. Karta in which his
income is around Rs. 11,00,000/- per
annum. Thus, his total income being Rs.
27,00,000/- per annum and Rs. 2,25,000/-
per month.

On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for opposite
party nos. 2 and 3 submits that trial court
while passing the impugned judgment has
considered all aspect of the matter after
deeper scrutiny of the oral as well as
documentary evidence led before it. Since
the trial court while passing the impugned
judgment has not committed any error in
the eyes of law, therefore, present criminal
revision is liable to be dismissed.

8.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties as
well as perusal of record including the
impugned judgment.

9. Qua the relationship between the
revisionist and opposite party nos. 2 and 3,
since before the trial court as well as before
this Court, it is admitted on behalf of the
revisionist that opposite party no.2 is his
legally wedded wife and opposite party
no.3 is his real daughter, therefore, this
Court is not required to discuss issue no.1
any more.

10. Insofar as the separate living of
opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e.
10 All. Gaurav Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
885
revisionist is concerned, this Court may
record that the trial court while deciding the
said issue under the impugned judgment
has considered the statements of opposite
party no.2 by recording that after marriage
when the opposite party no.2 reached her
matrimonial house, she was taunted for not
bringing a car as dowry and also she was
subjected to tortured and thereafter she was
suffering from mental stress. It is further
recorded
that
after
returning
from
honeymoon, the mother-in-law and fatherin-law of opposite party no.2 again started
demand of a car as dowry and thereafter
she was subjected to intense mental and
physical torture continuously. It is then
recorded that when opposite party no.2
became pregnant, she was asked to undergo
a fetal sex determination test and when she
protested, she was forced to stay at her
parents' house. For delivery of child, she
was sent to her parents' home on 13th May,
2020. The trial court has recorded that
since during cross-examination, opposite
party no.2 as P.W.1 was not crossexamined on the aforesaid statements on
behalf of the revisionist, therefore, trial
court has opined that it has been fully
established by opposite party no.2 that she
is living separately from her husband i.e.
revisionist along with her daughter for
sufficient reasons.

11. Since the trial court has recorded
categorical finding on that issue and also
the revisionist has not cross-examined the
opposite party no.2 as P.W.1 about the
allegations made by her during the course
of trial, therefore, this Court is in full
agreement with the finding recorded by the
trial court on the aforesaid issue.

12. Qua the monthly income of the
opposite party no.2, this Court may further
record that the trial court under the
impugned judgment while dealing with the
said issue has recorded that the opposite
party no.2 has admitted in the crossexamination that before marriage she used
to work at two places and from said jobs,
she used to earn approximately Rs.
30,000/-
per
month.
In
the
crossexamination, opposite party no.2 has stated
that she left the job, which was doing in
Gulmohar School after marriage and before
delivery but after delivery she left her both
jobs. In the cross-examination, opposite
party no.2 has done B.Com and Interior
Designing degree courses. However, she
has stated that presently she is unable to
work due to caring of her child even though
she is highly educated and capable of
supporting herself. The trial court has
further recorded that the revisionist has
failed to prove that the opposite party no. 2
is presently working. The revisionist has
not produced any evidence that she is
capable for supporting herself.

13. The trial court, while relying upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court
in the case of Sunita Kachwaha Vs. Anil
Kachwaha reported in AIR 2015 SC 554
wherein it has been observed that merely
because the wife was earning something, it
would not be ground to reject her claim for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
has opined that if the opposite party no.2 is
doing some petty job to earn her livelihood,
it cannot be said that she is capable of
supporting herself. The trial court has also
observed that in the affidavit filed in
accordance with the judgment of the
Honble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra), the
opposite party no.2 has mentioned herself
as house wife. The opposite party no.2 is
not presently earning any income. The
revisionist has also not made any statement
or given any evidence that the opposite
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party no.2 is engaged in any work.
Opposite party no.2 is unable to support
herself, therefore, the revisionist has moral
and legal obligation to provide adequate
support to her wife i.e. opposite party no.2.
On the basis of such finding, the trial court
has come to the conclusion that opposite
party no.2 is not capable to maintain herself
and her daughter.

14. Since the points with regard to
monthly incomes of the revisionist and the
opposite party no.2 are dependent upon
each other, therefore, this Court shall
decide the same altogether after noticing
the finding of the trial courts on both the
points.

15. Now this Court comes to the
monthly income of the revisionist. The trial
court while deciding the said issue has
recorded that as per the version of opposite
party no.2 the revisionist is a director in
Rakshit Engineering Works and qua the
income of the revisionist opposite party
no.2 has also produced Forms 5/8, 5/25,
5/21, and 5/39. On the other hand, the
revisionist in his affidavit has stated that he
is a director and his salary is Rs. 20,000/-
per month. The revisionist has also not
provided details of his assets. He is an
income tax payer and has misrepresented
his income. The revisionist has filed
balance sheets of the company. According
to Form No. 50/12, his salary is Rs.
2,40,000/-, and in the year 2020, his salary
was Rs. 6 lakh per year. The assets of the
company has increased, as is evident from
Forms No. 50/80 and 50/67. The revisionist
stated that his income depends on shares of
the company.

16. The trial court has further recorded
that the revisionist has filed the income tax
details for the year 2022-2023 and year
2023-2024 from List 46, according to
which, his salary is approximately Rs.
4,86,630/- per year. The revisionist has
admitted in his cross-examination that his
salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month. He
submitted a CA certificate in this regard but
the C.A. does not issue any income
certificate. The revisionist should have
submitted his company's income certificate.
The documents filed by the opposite party
no.2 clearly disclose that the salary of the
revisionist was never Rs. 20,000/- per
month, nor is it presently.

17. The trial court has again recorded
that the income tax returns filed by the
revisionist, as per Schedule 46, prove his
income. The forms produced by opposite
party no.2 are for the year 2022. On the
basis of such finding, the trial court has
recorded that since the revisionist is a
taxpayer
and
a
director
in
Rakshit
Engineering, so it is clear that he is able to
provide maintenance. The revisionist has
also not produced any evidence to
contradict the evidence produced by
opposite party no.2 regarding his income.
He has also not provided any explanations
regarding his income and expenses. It is
clear that the revisionist has attempted to
conceal his income and is capable to
support his wife and also the opposite party
no.2 has successfully proven this point.

18. The trial court after relying upon
the judgments of the Supreme Court of
India in the cases of Shamima Farooqui
Vs. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015
2025 and Bhuvan Mohan Singh Vs.
Meena & Others reported in 2014 CRLJ
3979 and also Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai,
reported (2008) 2 SCC, 316, has opined
that the wife has the right to live the same
standard of living as was living with her
husband.
10 All. Gaurav Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
887

19. On the basis of aforesaid findings
and the laws laid down by Honble
Supreme Court of India referred to above,
the trial court has opined that since the
revisionist
has
not
produced
any
documentary
evidence
regarding
the
income of the opposite party no.2, she
appears to have no source of income and
she is unable to maintain herself, therefore,
she is entitled to receive maintenance from
her husband i.e. revisionist. On the basis of
such findings, the trial court has passed the
impugned judgment while deciding the
aforesaid two points qua the monthly
incomes of the revisionist and opposite
party no.2..

20. From the deeper scrutiny of the
findings recorded by the trial court on both
the points, it may be noted that it is
admitted position that opposite party no.2
is, having B.Com and Interior Designing
degree courses, is a highly qualified lady
and also before delivery of her daughter,
she was working at two places and from
where she was earning Rs. 30,000/- per
month and except the income tax return of
the financial year 2019-2020 of opposite
party no.2 which has been produced before
the trial court by the revisionist, wherein
gross income of the opposite party no.2
was Rs. 3,09,772/- per year, no other
documentary evidence has been produced
by the revisionist before the trial court from
which it is established that presently the
opposite party no.2 has sufficient source of
income to maintain herself and her
daughter. Even otherwise, it was claimed
on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that the
Income Tax Return of the financial year for
2019-2020 was filed by the revisionist and
not by opposite party no.2 herself. Since
the mobile of opposite party no.2 was used
by the revisionist also through which the
opposite party no.2 had filed the said
income tax return for the reasons best
known to him. The revisionist has admitted
in his cross-examination that he used the
mobile phone of the opposite party no.2
and has stated that the same was having in
his possession on which he saw the OTP.

21. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the cases of
Shamima Farooqui and Bhuvan Mohan
Singh (Supras) relied upon by the trial
court while passing the impugned judgment
has opined that the concept of sustenance
does 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. She is
entitled in law to lead a life in the similar
manner as she would have lived in the
house of her husband. That is where the
status and strata come into play, and that is
where the obligations of the husband, in
case of a wife, become a prominent one. In
a proceeding of this nature, the husband
cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of
the benefit of living with dignity. Regard
being had to the solemn pledge at the time
of marriage and also in consonance with
the statutory law that governs the field, it is
the obligation of the husband to see that the
wife does not become a destitute, a beggar.
A situation is not to be maladroitly created
whereunder she is compelled to resign to
her fate and think of life "dust unto dust".

22.
Similarly
in
the
case
of
Chaturbhuj (Supra) which has also been
relied upon by the trial court under the
impugned judgment has held that the object
of the provisions like Section 125 Cr.P.C.
being to prevent vagrancy and destitution,
the Magistrate or the Court 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
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 added)

23. The Honble Supreme Court in
the case of Rajnesh (Supra) has framed
criteria for determining the quantum of
maintenance, which are quoted as under:

77. The objective of granting
interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that
the dependant 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 dependant 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 nonworking wife.

79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha
Jain MANU/SC/0355/2017 : (2017) 15
SCC 801 this Court held that the financial
position of the parents of the applicantwife,
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. 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 dependant
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.

99. A careful and just balance
must be drawn between all relevant factors.
The test for determination of maintenance
in matrimonial disputes depends on the
financial status of the Respondent, and the
standard of living that the applicant was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
The maintenance amount awarded must be
10 All. Gaurav Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
889
reasonable and realistic, and 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
meagre that it drives the wife to penury.
The sufficiency of the quantum has to be
adjudged so that the wife is able to
maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

(Emphasis supplied)

24. In view of the aforesaid legal
proposition of laws as settled by the
Honble Supreme Court of India, this
Court is of the opinion that it is no
undisputed position that the revisionist has
failed to produce any evidence either
before the trial court or before this Court
that at present she has any source of
income to maintain herself and her
daughter. Even if it is presumed that she
being a highly qualified lady may somehow
earn some money, she cannot be deprived
of the maintenance allowance as she was
living with her husband at her matrimonial
house.

25. This Court also agrees with the
finding and opinion of the trial court that
the revisionist has sufficient means to
maintain his wife and children. Any person
like the revisionist has not come before the
trial court as well as this Court with clean
hands. The trial court has specifically
recorded under the impugned judgment that
for
escaping
to
give
maintenance
allowance, he has attempted to conceal his
income. He has deliberately not filed the
relevant documents before the trial court as
well as before this Court regarding total
income, total assets, loss and profit as well
as balance-sheets of the company, where
he, his father and mother are the directors.

26. The trial court has also recorded
that the documents produced by opposite
party no.2 regarding balance-sheets of the
company and salary slips of father and
mother of the revisionist before the trial
court have not been controverted by the
revisionist. The trial court has again
recorded that in the affidavit filed by the
revisionist before the trial court in
accordance with the guidelines framed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) he has
concealed his real income.

27. From perusal of the documents
produced by the opposite party no.2 before
the trial court as well as before this Court,
it is surprising to note that in a company,
where the son i.e.