Dismissed

Vijay Bahadur Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021CRLR/710/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenging a maintenance order of Rs. 5,000 per month was dismissed. The court held that the order was just and legal, noting the husband's employment as an Engineer and the fundamental principle under Section 125 CrPC that maintenance should ensure dignity, not mere survival.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; petitioner directed to pay 1/4th of arrears within one month and balance in six equal installments.

Vijay Bahadur Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 710 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Vijay Bahadur Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmala Yadav,Sukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vineet Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this criminal revision, revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 7.1.2021 passed in Case No. 380 of 2003 (Archana Singh Vs. Vijay Bahadur Chauhan) by which application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to Opposite Party No.2. Further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order has also been made.

¶7

The only contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eyes of law being too excessive.

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of the revisionist who is employed in department of Aawas Vikas as an Engineer. Therefore, 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 he is unable to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife.

¶9

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 702 has observed as under:

¶10

"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

¶11

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."

¶12

In view of settled legal position, enumerated above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error. Moreover, looking to the present socio-economic condition Rs. 5,000/- can not be said to be exorbitant more so, when husband is getting handsome salary as is evident from the record.

¶13

Present criminal revision being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

However, it is provided that the revisionist shall pay 1/4^th of the amount of arrears of maintenance to the opposite party no.2 within one month from today and remaining amount of arrears shall be paid by him in six equal installments within six consecutive months starting from 15th of November, 2021. The monthly maintenance amount shall also be paid regularly by the revisionist.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.9.2021 S.Verma

Vijay Bahadur Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bahadur Chauhan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Indu Kapoor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Nafees Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asmit Pal Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ayyub Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tejpal Vs State of U.P. and Another