Dismissed

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2020CRLR/1050/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision against an order enhancing maintenance from Rs.2,000 to Rs.7,000 per month. The High Court upheld the Family Court's order, holding that the enhanced amount was reasonable based on the revisionist's salary of Rs.33,946 and family status, rejecting the claim of illegality or excessiveness.

What did the court decide?

The revision was rejected and the order passed by the Family Court enhancing maintenance to Rs.7,000 per month was upheld.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1050 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Babu Lal Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the revisionist through Video Conferencing and Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned A.G.A., who is present in the Chamber.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 passed by learned Additiional Principal judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.450 of 2017, Smt. Aarti Vs. Sunil Kumar, under Section 127 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the learned court below has allowed the application filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and directed to the revisionist to pay Rs.7,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party no.2, by the impugned order the maintenance was enhanced under Section 127 Cr.P.C. from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶7

The prosecution case in brief is that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Aarti) on 03.03.2008. Due to non fulfillment of demand of additional dowry the opposite party No. 2 (wife) was deserted by the revisionist. The opposite party No. 2 lodged a case of harassment under Dowry Prohibition Act against the revisionist and his family members. The concerned police chargesheeted only the revisionist (husband) and his family members were exonerated. A case for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also filed in Family Court and the Family Court awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife payable w.e.f. 18.07.2008, the date of filing the case. Thereafter, a case under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the learned Additional Principal Family Court, Room No. 3, Kanpur Nagar on the allegation that the revisionist is not paying the maintenance amount to her in compliance of the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has been alleged before the Family Court that father of opposite party No. 2 is doing a private job and in a house of two rooms as many as five members live together. The revisionist is in government job in Nagar Nigam and is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He also occupies 2-3 houses, which have been let out on

¶8

rent. It was bounden duty of the revisionist husband to maintain his wife as per his status. On these allegations, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month was claimed by the wife from her husband revisionist.

¶9

In rebuttal the revisionist has stated the opposite party No. 2 is getting Rs. 2,000/- per month from his salary and she is also earning Rs. 10,000/- from doing the tuition job, thus, she is leading a happy life and does not deserve for the maintenance from the revisionist as she herself has deserted the revisionist and has chosen to live separately from him. It was also stated in rebuttal by the revisionist that his family is in debt and after paying the installments of debt to the bank and money lenders, he gets only Rs. 5,000/- to maintain himself and his family. He prayed that the case filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. should be rejected as the same has been filed to harass the revisionist unnecessarily. In support of her claim the wife filed two affidavits which were not controverted by the revisionist and according to the affidavits the revisionist gets Rs. 33,946/- per month as salary for the work of Safaikarmi and after a deduction of Rs. 4,900/- per month made from his salary, the revisionist gets a net salary of Rs. 29,046/- per month. In this view of the matter the learned Family Judge allowed the suit filed by wife under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and increased the amount of maintenance from Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 7,000/- per month payable to her w.e.f. the date of the order. Being aggrieved with this order, the present revision has been filed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is working as Safai Karmachani in Kanpur Nagar Nigam and is getting a meagre amount as salary and his family is still in debt. He is not able to maintain even his family as a huge part of his salary is spent every month in paying the debts borrowed from the bank and money lenders. The further argument is that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid as it was passed by the learned Family Court after considering the evidence available on record.

¶12

From the perusal of the papers it is evident that the revisionist is working as Safai Karamchari in Kanpur Nagar Nigam and is drawing salary of Rs.33,946/- per month and it is apparent that the Family Court while passing the order and awarding Rs.7,000/- per month as compensation has considered the

¶13

family status of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 and this Court after analyzing the factual matrix of the revisionist and considering the law, is of the opinion that no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the concerned Family Court and the enhanced maintenance granted to the opposite party no.2 of Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of order in no way can be termed unjust, unreasonable or excessive.

¶14

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perfectly valid and no illegality or impropriety is apparent in the impugned order.

¶15

In the result, the revision lacks merit and is accordingly, rejected.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.6.2020 R./

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Constable Surendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Pratap Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Other

Ajay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Abhishek Pathak (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Pathak (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another