Dismissed

Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019CRLR/2670/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi challenged the Family Court's maintenance order granting relief to his wife and daughters. The revisionist argued the amount was excessive and his income unproven. The High Court found no error in the trial court's assessment and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed, leaving the maintenance order held by the Family Court in force.

Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2670 of 2017

¶3

Revisionist :- Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Brijesh Sahai,Zia Naz Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Zia Naz Zaidi, learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for State. None for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶6

Present Criminal Revision has been filed by Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23.5.2017, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, in Case No. 238 of 2014, Smt.Tahmeena and Others v. Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi, by which, lower Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., moved by Smt. Tahmeena and granted maintenance allowance to them.

¶7

Brief facts giving rise to the present revision is that applicantsOpposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 filed application against Opposite Party-revisionist, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, stating that her marriage with Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi took place on 11.12.2006 according to Muslim Rites. Her husband was not satisfied with the Dowry given in marriage and insisted to take money from her father for her personal expenses and started harassing, torturing and humiliating her. Applicant's father gave cash to Opposite Partyrevisionist. He was heart patient and unable to walk. Many times, she was beaten brutally; ultimately she along with her daughters were kicked out by Opposite Party-revisionist having sufficient means neglected and refused to maintain the applicants-Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4, unable to maintain themselves whereas Opposite Party-revisionist is literate and

¶8

BUMS degree holder and runs a clinic; his monthly income is more than one lac rupees.

¶9

On contrary, Opposite Party-revisionist filed his reply casually denying assertion by applicants-Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 and stated that Applicant No.1-Opposite Party No.2 is a teacher in Springdale School and earning Rs. 6000/- per month and she is fully competent to maintain herself and her daughters.

¶10

Learned counsel for revisionist submits that impugned order is bad in law. Learned Trial Court did not appreciate entire evidence available on file in the right perspective, maintenance amount awarded by Trial Court is very high; income of Opposite Party-revisionist is not proved, Opposite Partyrevisionist himself is living in the house of his relating in Delhi due to harassment of his wife-Opposite Party No.2. It is further submitted that Opposite Party-revisionist is ready to maintain his wife and children if they wish to live with him. Despite query made by the Court, she did not dispute the marriage of applicant No.1-Opposite Party No.2 with Opposite Partyrevisionist and parentage of two daughters.

¶11

Learned AGA for State supported the impugned order.

¶12

Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under : -

¶13

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

¶14

If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -

¶15

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

¶16

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

¶17

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality

¶18

or injury unable to maintain itself, or

¶19

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

¶20

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

¶21

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

¶22

Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

¶23

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.

¶24

Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-

¶25

(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have attained his majority;

¶26

(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

¶27

Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from

¶28

the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.

¶29

If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month' s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:

¶30

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:

¶31

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

¶32

Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife' s refusal to live with him.

¶33

No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

¶34

On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

¶35

Since the marriage and parentage of the daughters are not disputed by Opposite Party-revisionist, only quantum of maintenance amount awarded by Trial Court remains to be scrutinized.

¶36

Medical profession of Opposite Party-revisionist is not denied by any of the parties. Smt. Tahmeena-Opposite Party No.2 examined herself in Lower Court as PW-1 stating mainly that she was ill-treated by her husband. Her husband and mother-inlaw kicked her from the house and she along with her children live in servant quarter. She further stated that her-husband is a doctor, who runs clinic and only son of his father; he possessed a considerable landed property; he owned a house having 28 rooms, in which, one school is being run and managed by her husband. She further stated that she did not want to leave her husband and mother-in-law because there is no one to maintain her and her children.

¶37

On the other hand, Opposite Party-revisionist states in his statement before the Court that her wife-Smt. Tahmeena is employed as Cashier in Springdel School. He admits that he was running a clinic in the house and presently he is living in Delhi at the house of mother's mother and he is a BUMS degree holder. He has given divorce to Smt. Tahmeena; he is not ready to keep her with him; his both daughters live with her wife.

¶38

Considering the argument of learned counsel for parties present and facts and circumstances of the case, evidence adduced by the both the parties, economical condition and social status of Opposite Party-revisionist, maintenance amount awarded by Trial Court appears not excessive and I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order and this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

This Criminal Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶40

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Akram

Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharam Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotu Rajbhar @ Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Avinash Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another