In a criminal revision against a family court order granting Rs. 1,000/- monthly maintenance, the High Court determined the allowance was inadequate and increased the amount to Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of application.
Maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month granted to the revisionist from the date of application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1009 of 2016
Revisionist :- Shabenoor Bano Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajendra Prasad Dubey,Viajy Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Srivastava
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order 29.2.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 1097 of 2013 (Shabenoor Bano Vs. Monsoor Khan) whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of revisionist Shabenoor Bano was allowed and opposite party no.2 Mansoor Khan was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to her wife revisionist Shabenoor Bano from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Brief facts of the case are that revisionist Shabenoor Bano was married with Mansoor Khan. She was subjected to cruelty, harassment and on 07.01.2011 she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home after beating her by her husband. Since then, she is living at her parental home. She has no means to maintain herself.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the husband revisionist is a tailor and his monthly income is Rs. 40,000 per month and the maintenance allowance, of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of application, granted to revisionist is not adequate.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the impugned order passed by the trial court is proper.
Although no evidence has been adduced by revisionist about the earning of opposite party no.2, even then if it is presumed that the opposite party no.2 is a manual labour, he may easily earn Rs. 7,000/- per month. Accordingly maintenance amount granted to the revisionist is not adequate.
From the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate to grant maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to Smt. Shabenoor Bano from the date of application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly the revision is allowed.
The opposite party no.2, Mansoor Khan is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to revisionist Shabenoor Bano from the date of application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 14.5.2018 Manish Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- granted to the wife is adequate given the husband's income.
What revised maintenance amount should be ordered for the wife.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of U.P.
Mansoor Khan
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
