Application under Section 482 CrPC challenging maintenance enhancement order was dismissed. Court held an able-bodied unemployed person must earn to maintain wife and bald excuses of non-employment have no acceptability in law.
Application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.
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. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5135 of 2021
Applicant :- Yogendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, applicant has challenged the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha in Criminal Case No. 197 of 2018 (Smt. Savita Rani Vs. Yogendra Singh), under Section 127 CrPC, by which, learned court below has enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs.700/- to Rs. 2,500/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an unemployed person and he has no means, as such, he is unable to provide the enhanced maintenance fixed by the court to his wife and as such, impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eye of law being too excessive.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the opposite party no.2 is the wife of the applicant, who is an able bodied person. An able-bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. No cogent grounds have been canvassed as to why such able bodied person is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife. Moreover, cogent reasons have been assigned assigned by the court below to enhance the amount of maintenance.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 has observed as under :-
It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute
commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
In view of settled legal position, enumerated above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity or apparent error.
Present application under Section 482 CrPC, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2021 Nadim
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order enhancing maintenance under Section 127 CrPC is maintainable when the applicant claims inability to pay due to unemployment.
Whether an able-bodied unemployed husband can refuse to pay the enhanced maintenance amount fixed by the court.
Whether the enhanced maintenance award is illegal being too excessive in light of the husband's financial status.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid KhanReferred¶9
(2015) 5 SCC 705 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Yogendra Singh
State of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
