In a criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the court dismissed the revisionist's challenge against the Family Court's order increasing maintenance awards to the wife and son, finding no illegality or jurisdictional error.
The criminal revision was dismissed with no interference in the impugned order increasing maintenance.
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. - 22
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 324 of 2018
Revisionist :- Amar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed against judgment and order dated 20.12.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Misc. Case No. 15/2015(Smt. Chhaya and another vs. Amar Singh) whereby application of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 namely Smt. Chhaya (wife) and Prayas Kumar Singh(son) under Section 127 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and amount of maintenance have been increased from Rs.600/- to Rs.3000/- to her and from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/- to her son.
It is admitted fact that father of revisionist has agricultural land and revisionist is living with his father, and apart from this he has sufficient income. It is also pertinent to mention here that now-a-days even unskilled labour is getting Rs.300-350/- per day. Hence income of a working person who is not disable, cannot be presumed less than Rs.8000/--9000/- per month. It is also pertinent to mention here that Rs.1500/- per month has been awarded to the child which is not higher at present time if the child is student of even lower class.
In the case of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner.
This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately. Order Date :- 5.2.2018/P.P.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's order increasing maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
Whether the revisional power under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is exercised properly in light of the revisionist's income.
Whether the awarded maintenance amount to the child is reasonable given current economic conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Munna Devi vs State of RajasthanRelied on¶8
Munna Devi vs State of Rajasthan & another (Crl. Appeal No. 1138 of 2001)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
