This criminal revision was filed against a Family Court order awarding Rs. 4000 monthly maintenance. The revisionist, a tailor, argued his income could not support this amount. The High Court found no perversity or illegality and rejected the revision.
The revision petition was rejected; the impugned Family Court order was left unaltered.
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. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 156 of 2020
Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 16.10.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in Misc. Case No. 108 of 2017 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. Police Station-Khudaganj, District- Shahjahanpur whereby learned Family Court awarded Rs.4000/- in lieu of Rs.1200/- monthly to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgement was passed without appreciating the evidence and not recording any satisfactory reasons regarding the income of the revisionist as the revisionist is tailor and hardly earns Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- but the learned Court below has wrongly rejected the objection of the revisionist and allow the claim of the opposite party no.2, and altered the amount of maintenance up to the tune of Rs.4,000/- in lieu of Rs.1200/- per month from the date of order.
Perusal of the record shows that the marriage between the parties is not disputed and out of their wedlock a son was born.
Learned Family Court has taken much pain in analyzing the evidence adduced before him. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court has no infirmity or illegality and the maintenance awarded by the Family Court cannot be considered as excessive taking into account the sky touching prices of the essential commodities.
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned and there is no justifiable ground for making any interference in it. Hence, revision fails and it is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 6.8.2021 Fhd.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court committed any perversity or illegality by enhancing maintenance from Rs. 1200 to Rs. 4000.
Whether the revisionist's income as a tailor warrants interference with the impugned maintenance order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Kumar
State of U.P.
Opposite Party No. 2
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
