##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3510 of 2024

Sri Hiralal

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Opposite

Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Chakshuvendra Pachauri

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Pandey, G.A.

Court No. - 89

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Chakshuvendra Parhauri, learned counsel for the

revisionist, Sri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.

2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set

aside the order dated 16-05-2024 passed by the learned Additional

Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Case No. 261 of 2019

(Smt. Kamla Devi vs. Sri Hiralal), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,

whereby the learned Trial Court directed the revisionist to pay Rs.

5,000/- per month from the date of the application.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist

completed his L.L.B. in the year 2016 and is preparing for

competitive examinations. It is further submitted that he has started

his practice in the District Court under the guidance of senior

counsel, and his income is highly uncertain. Sometimes he earns Rs.

300–400/- per day and sometimes he does not earn anything at all,

making it extremely difficult for him to meet even his basic

livelihood expenses.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned

A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contended that the revisionist is a

practicing lawyer in the District Court and earns a handsome

income. It is further submitted that the revisionist is the owner of 8

CRLR No. 3510 of 2024

2

bighas of land and two houses, and from the rent of these houses he

is easily earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. Considering the

present inflation, the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court

cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the capacity of the

revisionist. It was further submitted that the revision lacks merit and

is liable to be dismissed.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions

of learned counsel for the parties, and the record of the case

including the impugned order, it is an admitted fact that opposite

party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. As regards

the income of the revisionist, it is admitted that he completed his

L.L.B. in 2016, is preparing for competitive examinations, and has

recently started practicing under the guidance of a senior lawyer. His

income is uncertain and fluctuating, and there is no documentary

evidence on record regarding any stable or regular income. It is a

matter of common knowledge that most lawyers at the initial stage

of practice in district courts struggle to earn sufficient income and

often face severe financial hardship. The revisionist has stated that

sometimes he earns Rs. 300–400/- per day, and sometimes he earns

nothing. In the absence of any reliable material showing a fixed or

stable income, and keeping in view the principles laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324;

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR

2017 SC 2383; and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3

SCC 129, the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and

proportionate to the paying capacity of the husband.

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the

maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded to opposite

party no. 2 from the date of the application is not commensurate

with the uncertain and fluctuating income of the revisionist. It is true

that it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, but

the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and within his

financial capacity. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Court

below appears to be excessive and deserves to be modified.

Accordingly, the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 3,750/-

CRLR No. 3510 of 2024

3

per month from the date of the application.

7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. The

amount of mainte