Allowed

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018CRLR/990/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge upheld the High Court order awarding Rs. 3000 monthly maintenance to a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court rejected the revisionist plea that the amount was excessive and held that arrears from the application date were necessary to prevent vagrancy, subject to furnishing security.

What did the court decide?

Security of Rs. 1,40,000 within time; arrears of Rs. 1,23,000 in six instalments; maintenance from May 2018.

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 990 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Present revision has been filed to set aside the judgement and order dated 22.02.2018, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, in Maintenance Case No. 09 of 2015 Chanda Devi Vs. Anil Kumar Pandey) U/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sakaldiha, District Chandauli.

¶7

Present revision has been filed against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli dated 22.02.2018, by which maintenance allowance @ Rs.3000/- month has been awarded to opposite party no.2 from the date of her application being 06.01.2015.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the award of monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 3000/- that too from the date of the application is excessive.

¶9

In the first place it is seen that learned court below had found that the applicant is a practicing lawyer and has a standing of about 8-9 years in the District Court and that he is an able bodied person. Considering the aforesaid facts, learned court below has awarded Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance allowance. Considering the fact that maintenance allowance is awarded U/s 125 Cr.P.C. to provide for means of sustenance to the claimants to preserve their life and dignity and further to prevent vagrancy, the award of monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3000/- per month does not appear to be excessive or arbitrary, keeping in mind the financial and social status of the parties and the ever rising cost of living index.

¶10

Nothing has been brought on record in the present revision on the basis of which it may be held that the award of monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3000/- made against present applicant is beyond his means or capacity, it being admitted that the applicant is an able bodied person. Therefore, the award of monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3000/- is sustained.

¶11

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that award of maintenance allowance should have been made from the date of the order and not from the date of the application also cannot be accepted.

¶12

For a very long time, the opposite party did not receive any amount towards maintenance as had been claimed by her and which under law, she was entitled to. Also, even upon amount as claimed becoming payable she did not become entitled to any interest for the inordinate delay.

¶13

The cost of such delay, has to be borne by the applicant herein and not the opposite party/claimant especially, when the law created an expectation for the application to be decided within sixty days of it being filed.

¶14

Also, there does not appear to exist any material whereby the delay caused in the proceedings may be attributed to the opposite party.

¶15

The amount of monthly maintenance allowance being minimal, it is the arrears of that allowance, when paid would be such as may be able to defray the costs of dignified existence at the sufferance of the applicant. Such expenses may be assumed to be such as would have been necessarily borne by the applicant, had the opposite party resided with him all this while.

¶16

The applicant cannot deny the care to the opposite party-his wife, for the period she has not resided with him for reason of marital discord, except if the bar of section 125 Cr. P.C. operates. No such bar operates in this case. Consequentially, though the opposite party no.2 may have stayed physically apart from the applicant, the applicant has to still bear her expenses necessary to preserve her dignified human existence, keeping in mind the financial and social status of the parties.

¶17

Also, the applicant cannot be heard to say, that he would bear such expenses only from the date of the order. The applicant-an able bodied person is responsible to take care of all the financial needs of his wife from her marriage and not the date from which the court passes an order in that regard. Only upto the date, an application is made, would a defence be available to the applicant that such needs have been taken care of. Also, the learned court below has not found the opposite party to be a person with any earning to provide for her own needs.

¶18

Therefore, in my view the award of the maintenance from the date of application does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶19

Last, the applicant has prayed for time to make good the deficiency of deposit, looking into the facts it does appear that the applicant is is engaged in merely a dairy business, the ends of justice would be met, if the applicant is allowed some time to make such deposit.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant revision is disposed of with the following directions:

¶21

Subject to the applicant furnishing adequate security for the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the satisfaction of the court below in the shape of other than cash or bank guarantee by 30.04.2018, further coercive measures adopted against the applicant shall remain stayed, subject to other conditions provided herein.

¶22

The applicant shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance allowance from the period May, 2018 onwards as and when it becomes due, in the manner provided by the court below under the impugned award.

¶23

The applicant shall further pay Rs. 9,000/- towards maintenance allowance for the period February, 2018 and April, 2018 on or before 30.04.2018.

¶24

Subject to the applicant having complied with the above, the amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- (approximately) being arrears of maintenance allowance for the period from the date of application till the date of order shall be deposited in bi-monthly six instalments, such instalments being payable on

¶25

or before 31.05.2018, 31.07.2018, 30.09.2018, 30.11.2018, 31.01.2019 and 31.03.2019 respectively. The first five instalments would be of Rs. 20,000/- each while the fifth/last instalment would be for the balance amount.

¶26

All the amounts if deposited by the applicant in the Court below shall be released to the opposite party no. 2 forthwith.

¶27

However, it is made clear that in the event of failure on part of the applicant to comply with any part of the order, coercive measures be revived from that stage without any further reference to this Court and recoveries be made from the applicant in compliance of this order.

¶28

Order Date :- 2.4.2018 Shalini

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Syed Azhar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 others

Mst. Mabooda Khatoon and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Nitin Jaiswal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Gaurh and 22 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Raj Kishor and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another