# Smt. Rashmi Tripathi &Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. &Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 712
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-25
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1075 of 2017
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rashmi-tripathi-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44544
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.55,000/- per month to his wife and
son. The revisionist cannot spend his
entire earning on himself, but having
married to respondent no.2, he has to take
care of her and her son.

15. I further find no substance in the
argument of the revisionist that once
respondent no.2 has capacity to earn
Rs.20,000/- per month, then she is not
entitled for interim maintenance to the tune
of
Rs.55,000/-
per
month.
When
circumstances are not permitting respondent
no.2 to work on account of the fact that she
has to take care of her small son, she cannot
be blamed for not earning any amount.

16. Yet another important question,
which requires consideration, is that
though the order impugned granting
interim maintenance has been passed on
9.3.2016, till date the revisionist has not
honoured the said order in its true spirit.
By one way or the other, the revisionist is
avoiding to pay the interim maintenance
and even though the interim order has not
been modified by this Court, the revisionist
has not paid the full amount of interim
maintenance. It seems that the revisionist is
intentionally avoiding payment of interim
maintenance.

17. Considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered view that the revision filed by
the revisionist has no substance. The same
is, accordingly, dismissed. The order
passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, which has been duly
affirmed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, cannot be faulted with, they are
accordingly maintained. The revisionist is
directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand Only) as costs of
this litigation to respondent no.2.

18. As the revisionist has not paid
full amount of interim maintenance to
respondent no.2, he is directed to clear the
entire dues, within two months from
today. He is further directed to pay
Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand
Only) per month, as interim maintenance
regularly. He is obliged to deposit the said
amount in the first week of every month.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1075 of 2017

Smt. Rashmi Tripathi &Anr. .... Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. &Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:Sri Tung
Nath Tiwari, Sri Surya Mani Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties
Govt. Advocate, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh

A. Criminal Revision - enhancement of
maintenance-
Section
125
Cr.P.C.
-
respondent no. 2 Income Tax Inspector-
revisionist qualified lady-earlier working
in private firm - son - paying interim
maintenance not charity by husband-
legal duty irrespective no matter he
earns more or less-maintenance as per
their standard of living- revision allowed
 (Para 11)

Chronological List of Cases Cited: -
1.(2015) 5 SCC 705 Shamima Farooqui Vs
Shahid Khan

2.Criminal Appeal No. 1220 of 2018 Reema
Salkan V Sumer Singh Salkan

3.(2015) 2 SCC 385 Jaiminiben Hirenbhai
Vyas &Anr. Vs. Hirenbhai Remeshchandra
Vyas&Anr.

(E-10)
1 All. Smt. Rashmi Tripathi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
713
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.)

1. Sri Surya Mani Pandey, learned
counsel for the revisionists, Dr. Gyan
Singh, learned counsel for the State and
Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel
for respondent no.2.

2. Challenge in the present revision
is to the order dated 25.9.2017 passed by
the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case
No.403 of 2013, whereby the court below
has awarded maintenance amount of
Rs.6,000/- per month to revisionist no.1
(wife of respondent no.2) and Rs.3,000/-
per month to revisionist no.2 (son of
respondent no.2). .

3. Brief facts of the case are that
marriage
of
revisionist
no.1
was
solemnized with respondent no.2 on
23.2.2012 and out of the wedlock, they
have a son, namely Shivansh. As
revisionist no.1 was subjected to cruelty
and harassment for demand of dowry,
under the compelling circumstance, she
left the house of her husband and started
living separately. On 17.5.2013, the
revisionists filed an application under
Section
125
of
Cr.P.C.
claiming
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each from
respondent no.2. In the application, it has
been contended by the revisionists that
respondent no.2 is working as Income
Tax Inspector and his salary is about
Rs.40,000/- per month. He has other
source of income as well. In her
examination, revisionist no.1 has stated
that the salary of respondent no.2 is now
50,000/- per month whereas he has other
source of income and therefore, suitable
maintenance
be
awarded
to
the
revisionists. Contentions of revisionist no.
1 have been denied by the respondent
no.2 and according to him, revisionist no.
1 is a qualified lady, has done her
Postgraduate Diploma and was earlier
working in a private firm and therefore,
she is not entitled for any maintenance. It
has
been
further
pleaded
by
the
respondent no.2 that after deduction, his
salary is about Rs.33,000/- and he has
taken a loan from Life Insurance
Corporation.
Vide
order
dated
19.12.2016, the Family Court below has
declined the claim of revisionist no.1 and
has awarded Rs.3000/- per month as
maintenance amount to revisionist no.2.
The court below has declined the claim of
revisionist no.1 on the ground that she has
sufficient qualification. This order of the
Family Court was assailed by the
revisionists before this Court in Criminal
Revision No. 13 of 2017 and after setting
aside the order dated 19.12.2016, matter
was remanded back to the court below for
reconsideration
and
decision
afresh.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court,
the Family Court below passed the
impugned order dated 25.9.2017 granting
maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to
revisionist no.1 and Rs.3000/- per month
to revisionist no.2. It is this order which
has been challenged by the revisionists
before this Court.

4. Counsel for the revisionists
submits:

(i) that as the order impugned
has not been assailed by the respondent
no.2, it is to be presumed that he is
admitting all the facts as narrated by the
revisionists.

(ii) that salary of respondent
no.2, as on date, is Rs.66,000/- and
considering the status of respondent no.2,
a
suitable
maintenance
amount
be
awarded in favour of the revisionists.
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) that revisionist no.2 has
been admitted in CityMontessoriSchool,
Lucknow where the revisionist no.1 is
required to pay about Rs.5000/- per
month as fee. That apart, she has to pay
Rs.2200/-
for
the
conveyance
of
revisionist no.2. For performing other
activities also, a lot of amount is required
to be spent for revisionist no.2 and
considering all these aspects of the case,
maintenance
amount
be
suitably
enhanced.

(iv) that on the one hand,
respondent no. 2 is living a lavish life
where he is having luxury car and three
dogs with him and on the other hand, he is
not maintaining the revisionists.

(v) In support of revisionist no.
1, it has been argued that amount of
Rs.3000/- per month is a meager amount
and it is literally impossible for a married
lady to maintain herself on this meager
amount.

5. On the other hand, denying the
contentions of revisionists, counsel for
respondent no.2 submits:

(i) that after all the deductions,
from his meager salary, he has to pay
EMI to the tune of Rs.27,000/- per month
for the house and it is incorrect to say that
he is having three dogs. He submits that
post of respondent no. 2 may be of
Income Tax Inspector but considering his
salary, he is just hand to mouth.

(ii) that number of litigations are
pending between the parties in various
courts and for that also, respondent no.2 is
required to spend huge amount.

(iii) that under the provisions of
Domestic Violence Act, revisionist no. 1
is getting Rs.1500/- per month where as
revisionist no. 2 is getting Rs.750/- per
month and if the total amount of
maintenance is calculated, as on date,
revisionist no. 1 is getting Rs.7500/- per
month whereas revisionist no.2 is getting
Rs.3750/- per month.

6. I have heard the parties and
perused the documents.

7. Undisputedly, respondent no.2 is
working as Inspector in the Income Tax
Department and his salary is more than
Rs.65,000/- per month. Ignoring his other
source of income, suffice to say that
income of respondent no.2 is sufficient
where he can maintain his wife and son in
a dignified manner. There is no substance
in the argument of respondent no.2 that as
the revisionist is a qualified lady, she is
not entitled for maintenance. Mere fact
that she is having MBA and Post
Graduate Diploma does not mean that she
is not entitled for maintenance specially
when she is not working anywhere.
Difficulty of revisionist no. 1 is required
to be appreciated where she is taking care
of a child, who has started his schooling
and if while maintaining her child she is
not working, she cannot be blamed.

8. Before adverting to the facts of
the case, it would be appropriate to refer
to certain case laws decided by the Apex
Court. In the case of Shamima Farooqui
v Shahid Khan, it has been held by the
Apex Court:

"13. When the aforesaid anguish
was expressed, the predicament was not
expected to be removed with any kind of
magic. However, the fact remains, these
litigations can really corrode the human
relationship not only today but will also
have the impact for years to come and has
the potentiality to take a toll on the
society. It occurs either due to the
uncontrolled design of the parties or the
1 All. Smt. Rashmi Tripathi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
715
lethargy and apathy shown by the Judges
who man the Family Courts. As far as the
first aspect is concerned, it is the duty of
the Courts to curtail them. There need not
be hurry but procrastination should not be
manifest, reflecting the attitude of the
Court. As regards the second facet, it is
the duty of the Court to have the complete
control over the proceeding and not
permit the lis to swim the unpredictable
grand river of time without knowing when
shall it land on the shores or take shelter
in a corner tree that stands "still" on some
unknown bank of the river. It cannot
allow it to sing the song of the brook.
"Men may come and men may go, but I
go on for ever." This would be the
greatest tragedy that can happen to the
adjudicating system which is required to
deal with most sensitive matters between
the man and wife or other family
members relating to matrimonial and
domestic affairs. There has to be a
proactive approach in this regard and the
said approach should be instilled in the
Family Court Judges by the Judicial
Academies functioning under the High
Courts. For the present, we say no more.

14. Coming to the reduction of
quantum by the High Court, it is noticed
that the High Court has shown immense
sympathy to the husband by reducing the
amount after his retirement. It has come
on record that the husband was getting a
monthly salary of Rs.17,654/-. The High
Court, without indicating any reason, has
reduced
the
monthly
maintenance
allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world,
it is extremely difficult to conceive that a
woman of her status would be in a
position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per
month. It can never be forgotten that the
inherent and fundamental principle behind
Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of
the financial state of affairs as well as
mental agony and anguish that woman
suffers when she is compelled to leave her
matrimonial home. The statute commands
there
has
to
be
some
acceptable
arrangements so that she can sustain
herself. The principle of sustenance gets
more heightened when the children are
with her. Be it clarified that sustenance
does not mean and can never allow to
mean a mere survival. A woman, who is
constrained to leave the marital home,
should not be allowed to feel that she has
fallen from grace and move hither and
thither arranging for sustenance. As per
law, she is entitled to lead a life in the
similar manner as she would have lived in
the house of her husband. And that is
where the status and strata of the husband
comes into play and that is where the
legal obligation of the husband becomes a
prominent one. As long as the wife is held
entitled to grant of maintenance within the
parameters of Section 125 Cr PC, it has to be
adequate so that she can live with dignity as
she would have lived in her matrimonial
home. She cannot be compelled to become a
destitute or a beggar. There can be no
shadow of doubt that an order under Section
125 Cr PC can be passed if a person despite
having sufficient means neglects or refuses to
maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is
advanced by the husband that he does not
have the means to pay, for he does not have a
job or his business is not doing well. These
are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have
no acceptability in law. If the husband is
healthy, able bodied and is in a position to
support himself, he is under the legal
obligation to support his wife, for wife's right
to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr
PC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

15. While determining the
quantum of maintenance, this Court in
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7, has held as
follows: (SCC p.12 para 8)

"8. ... The court has to consider the
status of the parties, their respective
needs, the capacity of the husband to pay
having regard to his reasonable expenses
for his own maintenance and of those he
is obliged under the law and statutory but
involuntary payments or deductions. The
amount of maintenance fixed for the wife
should be such as she can live in
reasonable comfort considering her status
and the mode of life she was used to when
she lived with her husband and also that
she does not feel handicapped in the
prosecution of her case. At the same time,
the amount so fixed cannot be excessive
or extortionate."

16. Grant of maintenance to
wife has been perceived as a measure of
social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj
v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been
ruled that: (SCC p. 320, para 6)

"6. ... Section 125 Cr PC is a
measure of social justice and is specially
enacted to protect women and children
and as noted by this Court in Capt.
Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena
Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 falls within
constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3)
reinforced
by
Article
39
of
the
Constitution of India. It is meant to
achieve a social purpose. The object is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution. It
provides a speedy remedy for the supply
of food, clothing and shelter to the
deserted
wife.
It
gives
effect
to
fundamental rights and natural duties of a
man to maintain his wife, children and
parents when they are unable to maintain
themselves. The aforesaid position was
highlighted
in
Savitaben
Somabhai
Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC
636."

17. This being the position in
law, it is the obligation of the husband to
maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted
to plead that he is unable to maintain the
wife due to financial constraints as long
as he is capable of earning.

18. In this context, we may
profitably quote a passage from the
judgment rendered by the High Court of
Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v.
Shila Rani Chander Prakash, 1968 SCC
OnLine Del 52, wherein it has been
opined thus: (SCC OnLine Del para 7)

"An able-bodied young man has to
be presumed to be capable of earning
sufficient money so as to be able
reasonably to maintain his wife and child
and he cannot be heard to say that he is
not in a position to earn enough to be able
to maintain them according to the family
standard. It is for such able-bodies person
to show to the Court cogent grounds for
holding that he is unable to reasons
beyond his control, to earn enough to
discharge
his
legal
obligation
of
maintaining his wife and child. When the
husband does not disclose to the Court the
exact
amount
of
his
income,
the
presumption will be easily permissible
against him."

19.

From
the
aforesaid
enunciation of law it is limpid that the
obligation of the husband is on a higher
pedestal
when
the
question
of
maintenance of wife and children arises.
When the woman leaves the matrimonial
home, the situation is quite different. She
is
deprived
of
many
a
comfort.
1 All. Smt. Rashmi Tripathi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
717
Sometimes the faith in life reduces.
Sometimes, she feels she has lost the
tenderest friend. There may be a feeling
that her fearless courage has brought her
the misfortune. At this stage, the only
comfort that the law can impose is that the
husband is bound to give monetary
comfort. That is the only soothing legal
balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign
to
destiny.
Therefore,
the
lawful
imposition for grant of maintenance
allowance.

20. In the instant case, as is seen,
the High Court has reduced the amount of
maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.2,000/-.
As is manifest, the High Court has become
oblivious of the fact that she has to stay on
her own. Needless to say, the order of the
learned Family Judge is not manifestly
perverse. There is nothing perceptible which
would show that order is a sanctuary of
errOrs. In fact, when the order is based on
proper appreciation of evidence on record, no
revisional court should have interfered with
the reason on the base that it would have
arrived at a different or another conclusion.
When substantial justice has been done, there
was no reason to interfere. There may be a
shelter over her head in the parental house,
but other real expenses cannot be ignored.
Solely because the husband had retired, there
was
no
justification
to
reduce
the
maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge fortune
that was showered on the wife that it
deserved reduction. It only reflects the nonapplication of mind and, therefore, we are
unable to sustain the said order."

9. Further, in the case of Reema
Salkan v Sumer Singh Salkan2, the Apex
Court held as under:

9. As aforesaid, the sole question is
about the quantum of monthly maintenance
amount payable by the respondent to the
appellant. In that, the Family Court has
unambiguously held that the respondent
neglected to maintain the appellant, for the
elaborate reasons recorded in its judgment
dated 28th January 2015. That finding of fact
has been upheld by the High Court vide the
impugned judgment. The Family Court has
also found as a fact that the appellant was
unemployed, though she is an MA in English
and holds a Post-graduate Diploma in
Journalism and Mass Communication and is
also a Law Graduate enrolled with the Bar
Council of Delhi. The High Court has not
disturbed that finding recorded by the Family
Court. Resultantly, both the Courts have
concurrently found that, in law, the respondent
was obliged to maintain the appellant.

13. Be that as it may, the High
Court took into account all the relevant
aspects and justly rejected the plea of the
respondent
about
inability
to
pay
maintenance amount to the appellant on
the finding that he was well educated and
an able bodied person. Therefore, it was
not open to the respondent to extricate
from his liability to maintain his wife. It
would be apposite to advert to the
relevant
portion
of
the
impugned
judgment which reads thus:

"79. The respondent during the
cross examination has admitted that he
too is B.Com, M.A.(Eco.) and MBA from
Kentucky
University,
USA;
the
respondent is a Canadian citizen working
with Sprint Canada and is earning
Canadian $(CAD) 29,306.59 as net
Annual Salary. However, he has claimed
that he has resigned from Sprint Canada
on 23.11.2010 and the same has been
accepted
on
27.11.2010
and
the
respondent since then is unemployed and
has got no source of income to maintain
himself and his family.
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
80. In the instant case, the petitioner has
filed the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
1973 for grant of maintenance as she does
not know any skill and specialised work
to earn her livelihood i.e. in paragraph 26
of maintenance petition against her
husband.
However,
the
respondent
husband who is well educated and comes
from extremely respectable family simply
denies the same. The respondent husband
in his written statement does not plead
that he is not an able bodied person nor he
is able to prove sufficient earning or
income of the petitioner.
81. It is an admitted fact emerging on
record that both the parties got married as
per Hindu Rights and Customs on
24.03.2002 and since then the petitioner
was living
with her parents from
10.08.2002 onwards, and the parents are
under no legal obligation to maintain a
married daughter whose husband is living
in
Canada
and
having
Canadian
citizenship. The plea of the respondent
that he does not have any source of
income and he could not maintain the
wife is no answer as he is mature and an
able bodied person having good health
and physique and he can earn enough on
the basis of him being able bodied to meet
the expenses of his wife. In this context,
the observation made in Chander Prakash
v. Shrimati Shila Rani, AIR 1968 Del 174
by this Court is relevant and reproduced
as under:

"7.........an able bodied young
man has to be presumed to be capable of
earning sufficient money so as to be able
reasonably to maintain his wife and child
and he cannot be heard to say that he is
not in position to earn enough to be able
to maintain them according to the family
standard. It is for such ablebodied person
to show to the Court cogent grounds for
holding that he is unable, for reasons
beyond his control, to earn enough to
discharge
his
legal
obligation
of
maintaining his wife and child."

82. The husband being an
ablebodied person is duty bound to
maintain his wife who is unable to
maintain herself under the personal law
arising out of the marital status and is not
under
contractual
obligation.
The
following observation of the Apex Court
in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, AIR
2014 SC 2875, is relevant:

"3.....Be it ingeminated that
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short "the Code") was
conceived to ameliorate the agony,
anguish, financial suffering of a woman
who left her matrimonial home for the
reasons provided in the provision so that
some suitable arrangements can be made
by the court and she can sustain herself
and also her children if they are with her.
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 where
under she is compelled to resign to her
1 All. Smt. Rashmi Tripathi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
719
fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is
totally impermissible. In fact, it is the
sacrosanct duty to render the financial
support even if the husband is required to
earn money with physical labour, if he is
ablebodied. There is no escape route
unless there is an order from the court that
the wife is not entitled to get maintenance
from
the
husband
on
any
legally
permissible grounds.

(emphasis applied)

83. The respondent's mere plea
that he does not possess any source of
income ipso facto does not absolve
himself of his moral duty to maintain his
wife in presence of good physique along
with educational qualification."

The view so taken by the High
Court
is
unassailable.
Indeed,
the
respondent has raised a plea to question
the correctness of the said view, in the
reply affidavit filed in this appeal, but in
our opinion, the finding recorded by the
High Court is unexceptionable.

15. The principle invoked by the
High Court for determination of monthly
maintenance amount payable to the
appellant on the basis of notional
minimum income of the respondent as per
the current minimum wages in Delhi, in
our opinion, is untenable. We are of the
considered opinion that regard must be
had to the living standard of the
respondent and his family, his past
conduct in successfully protracting the
disposal of the maintenance petition filed
in the year 2003, until 2015; coupled with
the
fact
that
a
specious
and
unsubstantiated plea has been taken by
him that he is unemployed from 2010,
despite the fact that he is highly qualified
and an ablebodied person; his monthly
income while working in Canada in the
year 2010 was over Rs.1,77,364/ and that
this
Court
in
Criminal
Appeal
Nos.23472349/ 2014 has prima facie
found that the cause of justice would be
subserved if the appellant is granted an
interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/per
month commencing from November 1,
2014. At this distance of time, keeping in
mind the spiraling inflation rate and high
cost of living index today, to do complete
justice between the parties, we are
inclined to direct that the respondent shall
pay a sum of Rs.20,000/per month to the
appellant
towards
the
maintenance
amount with effect from January 2010
and at the rate of Rs.25,000/per month
with effect from 1st June, 2018 until
further orders. We order accordingly."

10. In the case of Jaiminiben
Hirenbhai Vyas &Anr. vs. Hirenbhai
Remeshchandra Vyas &Anr. (2015) 2
SCC 385, after considering the definition
of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., it has been held
by the Apex Court in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 &
7 as under:

"4. ... ... ...

The provision expressly enables the
Court to grant maintenance from the date
of the order or from the date of the
application. However, Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. must be construed with subsection (6) of Section 354 Cr.P.C. which
reads thus:

"354 (6) Language and contents of
judgment. -

(6) Every order under Section 117 or
sub-section (2) of Section 138 and every
final order made under Section 125,
Section 145 or Section 147 shall contain
the point or points for determination, the
decision thereon and the reasons for the
decision."

Therefore, every final order under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. [and other sections
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
referred to in sub-section (c) of Section
354]
must
contain
points
for
determination, the decision thereon and
the reasons for such decision. In other
words, Section 125 and Section 354 (6)
must be read together.

5.
Section
125
Cr.P.C.,
therefore, impliedly requires the court to
consider
making
the
order
for
maintenance effective from either of the
two dates, having regard to the relevant
facts. For good reason, evident from its
order, the Court may choose either date. It
is neither appropriate nor desirable that a
Court simply states that maintenance
should be paid from either the date of the
order or the date of the application in
matters of maintenance. Thus, as per
Section 354 (6) Cr.P.C., the Court should
record reasons in support of the order
passed by it, in both eventualities. The
purpose of the provision is to prevent
vagrancy and destitution in society and
the Court must apply its mind to the
options having regard to the facts of the
particular case.

6. In Shail Kumari Devi v.
Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC
632, paras 39-41: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839,
this Court dealt with the question as to
from which date a Magistrate may order
payment of maintenance to wife, children
or parents. In Shail Kumar Devi, this
Court considered a catena of decisions by
the various High Courts, before arriving
at the conclusion that it was incorrect to
hold that, as a normal rule, the Magistrate
should grant maintenance only from the
date of the order and not from the date of
the application for maintenance. It is,
therefore, open to the Magistrate to award
maintenance from the date of application.
The Court held, and we agree, that if the
Magistrate intends to pass such an order,
he is required to record reasons in support
of such order. Thus, such maintenance
can be awarded from the date of the order,
or, if so ordered, from the date of the
application for maintenance, as the case
may be. For awarding maintenance from
the date of the application, express order
is necessary.

7. In the case before us, the
High Court has not given any reason for
not granting maintenance from the date of
the application. We are of the view that
the circumstances eminently justified
grant of maintenance with effect from the
date of the application in view of the
finding that the appellant had worked
before marriage and had not done so
during her marriage. There was no
evidence of her income during the period
the parties lived as man and wife. We,
therefore reverse the order of the High
Court in this regard and direct that the
respondent shall pay the amount of
maintenance found payable from the date
of the application for maintenance. As far
as maintenance granted under Section 24
of the HM Act by the courts below is
concerned, it shall remain unaltered."

11. From the above principles of law
laid down by the Apex Court, it is quite
apparent that husband while paying interim
maintenance does not do any charity and it
is his abandon duty to take care of his
family and wife, they cannot be left at the
mercy of the husband. If wife and children
are not in a position to maintain
themselves, it is the legal duty of the
husband to maintain them irrespective of
the fact whether he is earning more or less.
In the case of sufficient income on the part
of the husband, he has to pay interim
maintenance to his wife and children as per
standard of living and to ensure that they
meet all the necessary requirements for
their
dignified
survival.
1 All. Satyendra Vs. State of U.P. And Another
721

12. Considering the position of law
laid down in the aforesaid cases and also
considering the status of respondent no.2, it
is directed that revisionist no. 1 would be
entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- per month as
maintenance amount from respondent no.2
and likewise revisionist no. 2 would also be
entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- per month.
The revisionists shall be entitled for this
amount excluding the amount of Rs.1500/-
and Rs.750/- per month respectively awarded
in their favour by the Magistrate under the
Domestic Violence Act. The revisionists
shall also be entitled cost of this litigation,
which is determined as Rs.10,000/-.

13. The revision succeeds and is
allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1544 of 2017

Satyendra ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. And Another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Prem Shanker Prasad, Sri Bharat Singh.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, Sri
Samrin Naaz, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh.

A. Criminal Revision- Section 125 Cr.P.C.-
Husband well posted in Indian Army-
wife has no income - obligation of
husband to maintain her - personal
responsibility of husband to maintain her
after divorce- revision dismissed.

Chronological list of Cases Cited: -
AIR 1975 SC 83 Bhagwandutt Vs. Kamla Devi
 (E-10)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prem Shankar Prasad,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding
brief of Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2,
the learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material brought on record.

2. The instant revision has been filed
against the judgement and order dated
22.03.2017 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Mahoba, in Case No.73 of
2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt
Apurnima Vs. Satyendra) whereby the
application moved by opposite party no.2
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed
awarding Rs.8000/- per month towards
maintenance to the opposite party no.2
from the date of filing of the application,
which was to be paid by the revisionist by
10th day of each month.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, revisionist has preferred
this revision on the ground that the
impugned order is totally unjust and
incorrect as the fact that the husband has
no income, has not been taken into
consideration by the court below while
awarding maintenance to opposite party
no.2. Hence, the impugned order passed
by the learned court below is illegal,
perverse and based on no evidence.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist submits that the revisionist has
always been ready and willing to keep his
wife with him but she herself has left her
matrimonial house and is living in her
parental home without any reasonable