Single Judge dismissed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order awarding maintenance to a wife and minor daughter. The court upheld the quantum as not perverse given the applicant's financial status.
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. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1655 of 2018 Revisionist :- Suneel Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the applicant.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat, awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- towards the wife and Rs. 1,000/- towards the minor daughter.
I have myself gone through the pleadings raised in the affidavit filed in support of the revision petition and the grounds raised in the revision, questioning the order impugned. The marriage is admitted to the parties and also the fact that the child is born out of the wedlock. However, the relation went strained between the spouses and resultantly wife was forced to live with her parents since 20.03.2015. The Court below has recorded a finding of fact that there is no evidence to demonstrate, the applicant had ever made any effort to convince his wife to live with him, nor, did he spend any money towards the maintenance of his wife and the minor child. The Court has further recorded that the applicant has not been able to rebut the evidence to the effect that he was doing a crockery business in Delhi and therefore, he was having sufficient means to survive and to maintain his wife and the child as well. 5 bighas land as belonging to husband has also come to be established in view of the finding returned by the Court below.
Considering the overall financial aspects of the matter, as far as earning of the applicant is concerned, the Court below, in the opinion of the Court, has been generous enough in awarding a very paltry sum of Rs. 15,00/- towards the wife and Rs. 1,000/- towards the child. I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below.
Revision lacks merit and is hereby rejected.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 9.1.2019/P Kesari
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance order awarding Rs. 15,000 to the wife and Rs. 1,000 to the minor child is perverse in light of the applicant's financial position?
Whether the lower court's finding that the applicant failed to make any effort to maintain his wife and child is sustainable?
Suneel Sharma
State Of U.P.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
