The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by the husband challenging a Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance to his wife and minor daughter after their separation.
Criminal revision dismissed; the Family Court order regarding maintenance retaining its validity.
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. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4034 of 2019
Revisionist :- Gulzar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.08.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah in Complaint Case No.218 of 2017 (Smt. Gulshan Nanda @ Gulshan Rahwar and Anr. vs. Gulzar), under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police Station Nayagaon, District Etah and by the impugned order, Family Court, Etah has awarded Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party No.2 and Rs.1000/- per month to opposite party No.3 as maintenance till she attains majority from the date of the application, aggrieved from this impugned order, the present revision has been filed.
The facts of the present criminal revision is that an application was filed by opposite party No.2 seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter from the present revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the maintenance awarded to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is excessive and is not based on the evidence led by the parties. The second question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the maintenance which has been awarded from the date of the application given in the Family Court, Etah is absolutely illegal, perverse and totally based on wrong conclusion. No other contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
Learned AGA has opposed the revision and submitted that as per the scenario of escalation of price, maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and proper and is not excessive compared to the high cost of living in the society. Learned AGA has further submitted that Family Court has awarded the maintenance from the date of application given in the Family Court, is totally perfect. It has been specifically mentioned in Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C. that the maintenance or interim maintenance and the expanses for proceedings can be given by the Court from the date of order or from the date of application
given as the case may be.
After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that no illegality or impropriety or jurisdictional error has been committed by the Family Court while passing the impugned order.
The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.11.2019 Ravi Kant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance order of Rs.2000/- per month for the wife and Rs.1000/- per month for the daughter is excessive and not based on evidence.
Whether it is illegal to award maintenance from the date of the application under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C.
Whether the Family Court committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
