Dismissed

Bhoopesh Goyal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2019CRLR/1708/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a maintenance order of ₹5,000 per month. The High Court upheld the Family Court's judgment, finding the husband financially capable and the wife unable to support herself, noting the husband's remarriage as reason for separation. The revision was rejected due to lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition rejected; maintenance order of ₹5,000 per month affirmed.

Bhoopesh Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1708 of 2018 Revisionist :- Bhoopesh Goyal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶3

List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the counsel for the applicant.

¶4

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶5

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura awarding a maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2. This Court while entertaining the revision petition had directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 from June, 2018 and further Rs. 10,000/- for the months of April and May, 2018 and also to pay Rs. 25,000 towards the arrears on 30.06.2018 and subject to such deposit, it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken against him, pursuant to the award of maintenance. The applicant was also directed to file an affidavit of compliance by the next date. According to the office report dated 22.12.2018, compliance affidavit has not been filed till date.

¶6

Having gone through the judgement of the Principal Judge, Family Court dated 10.04.2018, I find that the Family Court has considered all factual aspects of the matter regarding marriage between the parties, the indifferent approach of the applicant so far the maintenance of his wife is concerned, the financial means of the applicant to maintain his wife and it has come to be established on record that the marriage was admitted to the parties having taken place on 19.04.2007 and since 06.05.2010, when the wife was thrown out of the house, she was living with her parents. After that the husband obtained an ex parte decree of divorce by filing a divorce petition in Rajasthan and also married thereafter immediately, and therefore, the Court recorded that the wife had every reason to live separately from her husband as he has entered into a second marriage. On the question of means of wife to maintain herself, the Court has recorded a finding that there was no source of income of the opposite party no. 2 whereas, the husband runs his

¶7

own hospital and has sufficient means to maintain the wife. The court has recorded that the opposite party no. 2 was not in any employment whereas, the applicant herein is having a masters Degree in Physiotherapy and that he is doing physiotherapy in University of Management and Technology, Jaipur and that he has also worked as a administrative officer in Brain Waves College of Physiotherapy and Hospital earning Rs. 60,000/- per month.

¶8

In the opinion of the court, therefore, the Court below has rightly held the applicant to be fully in a position to maintain his wife inasmuch as the qualification that he possesses, he must have a good source of income. In the opinion of the Court, Rs. 5,000/- is not too much an amount to be paid as maintenance looking to the background of the applicant. The Court does not find any error much less a substantial one to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

¶9

Revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.

¶10

Order Date :- 9.1.2019 P Kesari

Bhoopesh Goyal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoopesh Goyal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Narain Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Devraj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suneel Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhilesh Kumar @ Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another