Revision against Family Court order enhancing maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. held meritless; order found based on evidence, cost of living increase, and child's education expenses without material illegal.
Revision dismissed; stay order vacated; lower court record sent back for compliance.
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. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 31 of 2002
Revisionist :- Ramesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Family Court And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
No one has appeared on behalf of the revisionist even in revised list. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist-Ramesh Singh against the order dated 09.10.2001 passed by Family Court, Moradabad in Misc. Case No. 294 of 1999, under section 127 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Suman Vs. Ramesh) by which, the learned family court has enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to opposite party no. 2 from Rs.300/- to Rs.500/- and opposite party no. 3 from Rs.200/- to Rs.400/- per month on the application of enhancement given by the wife under section 127 Cr.P.C.
From perusal of impugned order, it appears that on 02.12.1994, the application of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed awarding maintenance amount of Rs.300/-per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs.200/- per month to opposite party no. 3. After lapse of about five years, the application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was given by the wife to enhance the maintenance amount on the basis of price rise and increase in the expenses of wife and her child who was studying in class IV. Objection was filed by the present revisionist claiming that he wants to keep son with him, but wife is not prepared to send the son to him. Evidence was taken by the court and on the basis of evidence, the impugned order for enhancing the maintenance amount was passed.
Aggrieved by that order, this revision has been filed on the ground that it has been passed without any material evidence on record and without considering that husband wants to keep the son with him. The impugned order has been passed without applying judicial mind, hence the same is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.
It is pertinent to mention here that initially when application under section 125 Cr.P. C. was allowed, the maintenance amount which was awarded, was very much in lower side. It is also pertinent to mention here that after enhancement of
maintenance amount, the said maintenance amount has been raised from Rs.300 to Rs.500/- per month and from Rs.200/- to Rs.400/- per month, as such, it is still in lower side. Thus, the order of enhancement passed by the family court appears to be based on evidence on record and increase in the cost of living and also the expenses in study of son, vice versa, the income of husband has been taken into consideration.
In view of above, there appears to be no material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
The revision lacks merit, hence dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
Lower court record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this judgement for information and necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 RCT/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court passed the enhancement order without applying judicial mind or having material evidence on record.
Whether the enhanced maintenance amount awarded to the wife and child is legally sustainable.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of U.P.
Family Court
Suman
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
