Allahabad HC Upholds Rs 20,000 Monthly Maintenance for Wife of Railway Divisional Engineer, Dismisses Husband's Revision

The Allahabad High Court rejected a Railways Divisional Engineer's challenge to maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month, finding no perversity where the husband admitted a monthly salary of Rs 74,513.

Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissed a criminal revision filed by Umesh Vidyarthi against an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra, directing him to pay his wife Madhubala maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month from the date of institution of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application until 30 July 2025, and Rs 20,000 per month from that date onwards. The husband, a Divisional Engineer in the Railways who himself admitted to a monthly salary of Rs 74,513, argued that the award was disproportionate and that the Family Court had acted illegally by pronouncing judgment despite a pending application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The High Court found neither ground persuasive and dismissed the revision on 13 July 2026.

The Family Court Proceedings and the Impugned Order

Madhubala had filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 84 of 2020 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. The Family Court partly allowed the application by its order dated 30 July 2025, awarding maintenance at Rs 15,000 per month from the date the application was instituted up to 30 July 2025, and stepping it up to Rs 20,000 per month from the date of the order.

The Family Court recorded, in paragraph 31 of its judgment, that the revisionist himself admitted his basic pay was Rs 50,000 per month and that he served as a Divisional Engineer in the Railways. In paragraph 32, the court noted his further admission that his monthly salary was Rs 74,513. Counsel for the opposite party added before the High Court that with annual increments and revision of dearness allowance applicable to Central Government employees, the revisionist's present salary would in all probability exceed Rs 80,000 per month.

Two Grounds Raised by the Revisionist

Umesh Vidyarthi pressed two separate grounds before the High Court. The first concerned quantum: he contended that Rs 20,000 per month was excessive and wholly disproportionate to his actual income, and that the Family Court had failed to appreciate the material on record relating to his income. His declared monthly income, he submitted, was approximately Rs 60,000, with a basic pay of Rs 50,000.

He also pointed to the wife's own affidavit filed pursuant to the directions in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 13 SCC 454, disclosing that she was an MBA graduate and had previously been employed but voluntarily left her job. The revisionist argued she was capable of maintaining herself and had resigned only to claim maintenance.

The second ground was procedural. The revisionist relied on this Court's earlier decision in Criminal Revision No. 3760 of 2023, Amit Bajpai v. State of U.P. and another, decided on 15 December 2023, where it had been observed that where an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is pending, proceedings should ordinarily be concluded only after that application is decided. He submitted that pursuant to an order of this Court dated 10 July 2025, an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. had been filed before the Family Court, but the Family Court pronounced judgment without deciding it, denying him an opportunity to establish his allegations of fabrication and forgery of documents relied upon by the wife.

The Timing of the Section 340 Cr.P.C. Application

The High Court examined the factual matrix of the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application closely. The application, registered as Application No. 76-ब/15 in Case No. 84 of 2020, was filed only on 22 July 2025 — after final arguments had concluded and when the matter had already been fixed for pronouncement of judgment.

The application itself bore a marginal endorsement in Hindi indicating it was being filed after completion of arguments, accompanied by a strong objection note. A further endorsement directed that the application be placed after computer verification. The High Court treated these endorsements as clear evidence that the proceedings were at the stage of final adjudication when the application arrived.

The revisionist sought to explain the delay by pointing out that although the High Court's order of 10 July 2025 prompted the filing, that order was uploaded only on 21 July 2025, leaving him no effective opportunity to file the application before arguments concluded. The High Court did not accept this as a basis for faulting the Family Court.

How the Bench Distinguished Amit Bajpai

Justice Shukla held that the reliance on Amit Bajpai was “wholly misconceived.” In that case, the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application had been filed on 31 March 2022, duly registered as a miscellaneous application, and was pending when the Family Court decided the Section 125 application on 14 June 2023 without considering it. It was the peculiar facts of that case — a registered, pending application ignored throughout the trial — that prompted the directions in Amit Bajpai.

Here, the application was filed only on 22 July 2025, after the conclusion of final arguments, when the matter was already reserved for judgment. The High Court observed that the opposite party's counsel was correct in submitting that had the revisionist been bona fide, he ought to have moved the application at an appropriate stage rather than after the final hearing concluded.

The Court went further, laying down a distinct principle: proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are independent in nature and are not connected with the adjudication of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Merely filing a Section 340 Cr.P.C. application after the matter is reserved for judgment does not ipso facto obligate the trial court to defer pronouncement. The revisionist retains the right to pursue the Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings independently in accordance with law.

Quantum of Maintenance: No Perversity Found

On the question of quantum, the High Court noted that the Family Court had taken into consideration the admitted income of the revisionist, the material available on record, and the financial status of the parties before determining the amount. The revisionist's own admissions in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the impugned judgment established a monthly salary of Rs 74,513 and a position as Divisional Engineer in the Railways.

The High Court declined to find the award of Rs 20,000 per month arbitrary, unreasonable, or excessive. No perversity or illegality had been pointed out in the Family Court's findings. Accordingly, it held that the award did not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

The wife's MBA qualification and prior employment were matters the Family Court had before it, and the High Court found no basis to conclude the court had erred in determining that maintenance was payable notwithstanding those facts.

Order

The High Court held that the impugned judgment and order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra dated 30 July 2025 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference. Criminal Revision No. 5330 of 2025 was dismissed as devoid of merit.