Allahabad High Court
Ramendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126030 Judgment Reserved on 19.05.2025 Judgment Delivered on 30.07.2025 In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3547 of 2023 Revisionist :- Ramendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhil Kumar Singh,Deepesh Kumar Ojha,G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Second, Gorakhpur in Maintenance Case No.681 of 2010 (Pratima Singh and another Vs. Ramendra Pratap Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Cantt. District Gorakhpur. By the impugned order learned court below has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed to the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 Pratima Singh from the date of application till the date of order and pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party No.3 Yuwaraj till his attaining to majority, total Rs.13,000/- per month and from the date of order to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 on 10th date of every month. It has further been directed that the said maintenance amount from the date of application till date or order shall be paid by the revisionist in 12 equal installment and if any interim maintenance have been received by the opposite party No.2 and 3, it will be adjusted in the amount fixed from the date of application to till date of order and further directed that if opposite party no.2 received any other maintenance the said amount will be adjusted in the amount fixed from the date of order.
2. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Rao,learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Deepesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in the present revision. It appears that this matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre and revisionist was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of demand draft/pay order, out of which Rs.95,000/- was payable to the opposite party on her appearance before the mediation centre and the remaining amount Rs.5,000/- was payable to Mediation Centre and in interim order was passed on 21.09.2023. However, according to report of Mediation Centre dated 28.03.2024, it failed.
4. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with the revisionist on 22.04.2001 according to hindu rites and rituals. A male child namely Master Yuwaraj Singh was born out of their wedlock. Respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on 18.08.2010 alongwith her minor son and shifted to her parental place and moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself as well as for her minor son Yuwaraj Singh through herself as natural guardian, with averments that after marriage of the contesting parties the couple led normal matrimonial life for around three years; and the couple was blessed with a son in the meanwhile. Thereafter, the applicant was subjected to torture, physical assault and abusive behaviour by her husband, Ramendra Pratap Singh and her in-laws. They used to exert pressure on her to bring money from her parental home. She took money from her widowed mother and younger brothers on several occasions, even then her husband and in-laws were not satisfied and her ordeal continued. Opposite party lived under pressure of his sister-in-law (bhabi) and even stooped talking to her prior to six years of filing of maintenance application. On 18.08.2010, the sister-in-law of opposite party, his parents and elder brother gave her beating, retained her valuables in their possession and evicted her from their house, and for that reason she was compelled to take shelter at her parental place. She is not possessed of any independent source of earning to maintain herself and her minor son.
5. The opposite party is posted in LIU Branch of Police, at Deoria. He earns an handsome money from his salary. She filed a written complaint before Learned District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Deoria on 04.09.2010. He is able to maintain his wife and son, he neglected to maintain her wife and son, despite sufficient means. The minor son of the applicant was studying in Pillars Public School, Civil Lines, Gorakhpur in Class-II, even his school fee was not paid by the opposite party. He possesses a triple storied house in Mohalla Rustampur Azad Nagar, in the city of Gorakhpur. His elder brother is an Advocate, his sister-in-law works as an Assistant Teacher at Gorakhpur.
6. The learned court below issued summon to opposite party who appeared and filed his written statement, in which he denied the allegations made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and stated that these are based on concocted facts only to give colour to the litigation. Neither the opposites party nor his family members ever assaulted or tortured the applicant. They never abused her or made any demand of money from her. They never caused any bodily injury to her. He was not having any type of illicit relationship with sister-in-law (bhabi). He loves his son very much, and was imparting quality education to him. The applicant has kept her stridhan with her, she is a modern open minded woman. She is M.A., B.Ed. and gives coaching, her monthly income from all sources is around Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000/- per month. It is wrong to say that she is dependent on her mother. She has sufficient means to her. She was working as a Teacher in St. Javier School, she possess good health, she is not disabled. She used to move several applications against the opposite party in police department with malafide intention and with a view to harass him.
7. The applicant produced herself as PW-1 and her mother Usha Pal as PW2 and brother Prabhat Pal as PW-3 in support of her version. Opposite Party appeared as OPW1 in evidence in support of defence version.
8. Learned court below framed four points of determination in respect of pleadings of the parties and gave a finding that applicant Pratima Singh is legally wedded wife of opposite party Ramendra Pratap Singh and applicant No.2 Yuwaraj Singh is their minor son. Applicant is unable to maintain herself and her minor son, whereas opposite is possessed of sufficient means to maintain them. The applicant is living separately from her husband due to sufficient reasons. He has neglected to maintain the applicants. The opposite party No.1 Ramendra Pratap Singh has stated in his evidence before the court that he is posted at Intelligence Unit of Police Department in Kanpur on the post of Head Constable, his monthly salary is Rs.46,299/- per month. During evidence this fact surfaced that applicant No.2 is undergoing course of B.Tech in Delhi, his educational expenses were borne by his mother, the applicant No.1. The maintenance case was filed in the year 2010, in which the applicant had claimed Rs.5,000/- for herself and Rs.15,000/- for minor son, but during the course of passage of 12-13 years, the salary of opposite party escalated considerably. The opposite party has not filed his salary statement.
9. With the above findings and observations, learned court below has awarded Rs.3,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to applicant No.2 Yuwaraj Singh till attainment of his majority, from the date of filing of application to date of judgment dated 29.03.2023, and thereafter opposite party shall give Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance. Future maintenance was denied to applicant No.2 perhaps for reason that he applicant No.2 become major, during the pendency of maintenance case. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that any amount obtained by the applicants as maintenance in any other case shall be liable to be adjusted.
10. The applicants have filed an execution case under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for enforcement of aforesaid judgment in which date of birth of applicant No.2 is shown as 19.03.2005 and it is shown that he has become major on 19.03.2013.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that during the pendency of present maintenance case on 27.02.2013, respondent No.2 had filed an application for interim maintenance against him, whereas he filed his objection on 15.05.2013, but without considering the objection of the revisionist, the learned court below allowed the application for interim maintenance vide order dated 15.05.2013. Whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3 as interim maintenance. This sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance was paid by the revisionist regularly. Respondent No.2 had filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for herself and her minor son on 08.02.2019, in which she prayed for enhancement of amount of interim maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.24,000/-; without mentioning the change in circumstances, this application was partly allowed vide order dated 15.02.2020 respondent No.2 was awarded Rs.5,000/- and respondent No.3 a sum of Rs.10,000/ per month as interim maintenance.
12. Being aggrieved by this order dated 15.02.2020 the revisionist filed Criminal Revision (D) No.378 of 2020 before this Hon'ble Court and this Court vide order dated 24.06.2020, stayed the effect and operation of order dated 15.02.2020 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur with condition that revisionist shall continue to pay maintenance amount Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife in place of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.6,000/- per month to her minor son in place of Rs.10,000/- during the pendency of revision. The revisionist has been regularly paying this modified amount of interim maintenance as directed by this Hon'ble Court. This earlier Criminal Revision has been renumbered as Criminal Revision No.1191 of 2020 (Ramendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and two others).
13. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that respondent No.2 had left the house alongwith her minor son on her sweet will without any reason. The revisionist is himself victim of harassment and torture given by his wife to him and also his parents, resultantly the parents of the revisionist became ill and later died. The respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on 18.08.2010, but only to harass the revisionist she lodged an FIR on 04.01.2013 against him, which is registered as Case Crime No.10 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Gorakhpur and got the revisionist sent to jail in said case.
14. The respondent No.2 is highly qualified lady and is getting Rs.30,000/- working as a Teacher in Sir Mount School, Gorakhpur. The learned court below received the income affidavit of respondent No.2 on 27.03.2023 and without waiting for any other evidence decided the case and awarded a huge amount of maintenance to the applicants, which is more than 50% of the monthly salary of the revisionist. The revisionist was not given opportunity to file his affidavit of disclosure of income, assets and liabilities, whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha made the filing of affidavit of income of both the parties mandatory.
15. He lastly submitted that applicant filed an application under Section 340 read with 195 Cr.P.C. before the court below, which is registered as Case No. 935 of 2023 (Ramendra Pratap Singh Vs. Smt. Pratima Singh) which is pending for reason of filing false affidavit of her income, as she has concealed her income in her affidavit. Whereas her salary Account No.50100167822774 HDFC Branch- Tara Mandal, Gorakhpur reveals that a considerable sum of money is regularly credited in that account. He is posted as Head Constable at S.P. (R ) Office Special Branch, Intelligence District Kanpur Nagar. She operates as many as four bank accounts.
16. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Satendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another Criminal Revision No.6203 of 2006, the relevant portion of the order is extracted as below:-
"In my opinion, it cannot be a valid consideration for deciding the controversy between the parties as to whether the procedure in initiating the proceedings under Section 340, Cr.P.C. adopted by the trial court was correct or wrong. The only consideration for testing the propriety of the judgment under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is as to whether the decision on the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. can be a valid consideration or not for deciding the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and in that regard it can safely be said that once findings recorded on the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. have not been set aside by any competent court of law, hence, these findings are binding upon the parties and in view of these findings this can very well be said that the evidence on the basis of which the wife got judgment in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be a good judgment as this judgment is based on that evidence which has been held to be forged by that very court which had decided the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C."
17. He also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury, AIR 2017 SC 2383, wherein it is held that Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers power upon the court to grant a permanent alimony to either spouse who claims the same by making an application. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act confers ample power on the court to vary, modify or discharge any order for permanent alimony or permanent maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding under the Act under the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25.
18. The Hon'ble Court observed in paragraph 16 that Apex Court placed reliance on a earlier judgment in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs Raj Kumari & another in 1970 3 SCC 129, wherein it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary could be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife.
19. In application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. dated 30.05.2023 the revisionist has alleged that applicant has concealed her four bank accounts whose details are given in paragraph No.4 of the application and has stated that Bank account of HDFC is her salary account, in which salary Rs.17,200/- is credited therein on monthly basis. In the rejoinder affidavit dated 02.12.2024 the revisionist has stated that during the course of time, salary has increased and now his net salary is Rs.47,016/-, but has stated even then the amount of maintenance awarded against the revisionist is exorbitant. The revisionist has filed her salary chart for the year 2018-2023, which reveals that in April 2023 his gross salary was Rs.64121/- and net salary was Rs.47016/- after compulsory deductions.
20. Respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit dated 01.10.2024, has shown his age as 19 years. He has filed his fee receipt which shows that he is undergoing B.Tech studies in JSS Academy of Technical Education, Noida and his annual fees for the year 2023-24 was around Rs.1,20,000/-. In Aadhar Card filed in the counter affidavit his date of birth is shown as 19.03.2005, whereas revisionist has shown date of birth of respondent No.3 in his sworn testimony before court as 19.06.2002. The respondent No.2 his mother has nowhere disclosed date of birth of her son Yuwaraj. Thus, the learned court below below is expected to demand academic documents of respondent No.3 in proof of his age as and when required. This is well settled that the Aadhar card is a proof of identity and not of date of birth.
21. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision No.3760 of 2023, wherein Single Bench of this Court placed reliance on a earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. (M/S) of 2002: wherein it was observed as under:-
"In my view, if any application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.
In the circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law."
22. This Court in Amit Bajpai Vs. state of U.P. and another (supra) accordingly allowed the Criminal Revision and set-aside the judgment and order dated 14.06.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.502 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the court below to decide the application filed by revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Application No. 473 of 2022 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, and thereafter the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. will be decided expeditiously.
23. Learned counsel for the revisionist also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha 2021 (2) SCC 324, wherein detailed guidelines were issued in connection with matter for grant of maintenance to wife, children and others under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is observed by Apex Court that the terms of maintenance are decided on the basis of pleadings of parties and on the basis of some amount of guess work. It is often seen that both the parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details and suppress vital information. The tendency of the wife is to exaggerates her needs, whereas the husband tends to conceal his actual income. Keeping in view this fact that Hon'ble Court laid down the procedure to streamline the grant of maintenance, guidelines were issued in exercise of powers under Article 136 read with article 142 of the Constitution of India, prescribing an uniform, format of affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities to file any maintenance proceedings.
24. It is further directed by Apex Court that the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities annexed as enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court/ Magistrate's Court concerned as the case may be throughout the country. The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file the concise application accompanied with the affidavit of disclosure of assets etc. The respondent must submit that the reply alongwith the affidavit of disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks'. The courts may not grant more than two opportunities or submission of the affidavit of disclosure to the respondent.
24. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contended that the amount awarded in the impugned judgment and order is reasonable, just and fair. Keeping in view the financial proceedings of respondent No.2 who has been nurturing and imparting quality education to her son and mother single handedly despite serious economic constraints. The respondent No.2 is a man of sufficient means and is posted as Head Constable in Police Department and his monthly salary is more than Rs.60,000/- according to his own admission. Therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgment and order in any manner could not be said to be exorbitant or beyond ability of the revisionist to pay the same. Respondent No.2 is an unemployed lady and there no proof on record that she is working as a teacher in some school. Respondent No.3 is a student and receiving education, who also needs financial support from his parents. The revisionist cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and son, who are not possessed of any independent source of income. Revisionist has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against respondent No.2 for disposal of maintenance case filed by respondent against him. It is wrong to say that respondent No.2 receives Rs.17,200/- as monthly salary from a school while working as a teacher. She was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 18.08.2020 after being given beating by her husband and in-laws. She made every effort to save her marriage. Revisionist never made regular payment of interim maintenance as warded to her, in fact she did not leave her matrimonial home on her own, she was turned out by opposite party from his home. She is still ready to live with the revisionist in her matrimonial home. The respondent is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband for her sustenance in the manner and life style to which she is accustomed to live in the husband's house. No interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order.
25. In the present case, the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities was filed by the original applicant on 27.02.2023, and the maintenance application was finally decided on 29.03.2023. Therefore, there is force in contention raised on behalf of the revisionist that he was not provided proper opportunity to file his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities because just after filing of affidavit in compliance of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra). On 27.02.2023 the learned court below decided her maintenance claim finally by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2023. Sofar as plea raised on behalf of the revisionist that the court below should have decided his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed against the applicant for concealment of material facts regarding her income and source of employment, it appears from the perusal of record that the present case decided on 29.03.2023, whereas the application under 340 Cr.P.C. a copy thereof is filed alongwith rejoinder affidavit, was presented before the court below on 30.05.2023 i.e. after lapse of a period of two months from passing of impugned final order. As at the time of passing of impugned judgment, the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was not in existence, the revisionist cannot seek benefit of aforesaid judgment to ask for setting aside impugned judgment on that count.
26. This is trite law that in criminal revision, legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment/order is examined. The revisional court is not desired to enter into findings of fact arrived at by the learned trial court, which is based on evidence on record. The interference of revisional court in findings of facts recorded by trial court is only permitted to the limited extent, where the same appears to be perverse and this is not the case in the present matter.
27. According to salary slip produced by the revisionist alongwith supplementary affidavit, it appears that his net salaried income was Rs.47,000/- in the year 2023. Thus, at present his net income may be estimated around Rs.50,000/- per month.
28. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that maintenance to wife may be granted around 25% of net income of husband. Although no clinching proof could be placed on record by the revisionist that respondent No.2 works as a teacher in Sir Mount School and her monthly salary is around Rs.17,000/- per month. Yet keeping in view the fact that revisionist has given details of four bank accounts maintained by respondent No.2 in his rejoinder affidavit, which suggests that she has some independent earning.
29. In Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) Hon'ble Court held that, if wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband.
30. The duty of the court is to look at the income she is earning him and of itself, and also the income of the husband and from that to determine whether or nor she is capable of sustaining herself in the manner and life style to which she was accustomed to live in the husband's house.
31. In Sunita Kachwaha And Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha (2014) 6 SCC 715 the Hon'bel Supreme Court held that mere fact that the wife was earning some income would not be enough to dis-entitled her from her right to claim maintenance, especially when the income is meagre.
32. Having regard to submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, their pleadings and documents supplied by them in support of their respective stand and also in light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order requires some modifications as respondent No.3 has now attained majority and it appears that the respondent No.2 has some independent earning. However, the revisionist could not file any clinching proof of her income as claimed in his written statement and rejoinder affidavit.
33. This is admitted fact that at present respondent No.3, the son of litigating parties has attained majority, the trial court will give a finding regarding his exact date of birth, on the basis of his academic documents which may be supplied by him or his mother. As Aadhar Card is not a proof of date of birth, but in fact an identity proof. Therefore, the quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, subject to other terms and conditions applied in the impugned judgment; from the date of filing of application to date of judgment is not interfered with and same is affirmed.
34. The revisionist will pay and continue to pay Rs.13,000/- per month in place of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by trial court to respondent No.2 as future maintenance form the date of judgement onwards. Other terms and conditions imposed in the impugned judgment and order are not interfered with. The impugned order stands modified to that extent . It is also directed that the court below will decide Misc. Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
35. The revision, stands partly allowed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.07.2025 Ashish/-