Partly allowed

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022A482/17247/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court considered an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a Family Court order granting interim maintenance. The Court found the award of Rs.10,000/month excessive relative to the applicant's income. Consequently, the maintenance amount was reduced to Rs.7,000/month.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order awarding Rs.10,000/month interim maintenance is modified to reduce the amount to Rs.7,000/month.

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Reserved On: 01.12.2022

¶2

Delivered On: 08.12.2022

¶3

Court No. - 88

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17247 of 2022

¶5

Applicant :- Rajveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant is present.

¶8

State is represented through learned AGA.

¶9

None for opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

¶10

This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in criminal case no.346 of 2020, under section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Saroj Devi vs. Rajveer Singh), P.S. Makkhanpur, District Firozabad.

¶11

The opposite party no.2 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the revisionist. She also moved an application for interim maintenance alleging therein that the opposite party has ousted him from his house and applicant is living in her mayaka. She is unable to maintain herself. It is the legal and moral duty of opposite party to maintain her. The opposite party possess 18 bigha agricultural land and two pakka houses and his monthly income is Rs.20,000/-. Applicant is unable to maintain herself and to bear the expenses of litigation. It was prayed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- per-month as interim maintenance be awarded to the applicant. The opposite party filed his objection. The learned court below by the impugned order dated 07.05.2022 has partly allowed the interim maintenance application and has awarded Rs. 10,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance to the applicant from the date of the order.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the marriage of the applicant with opposite party no.2 was solemnized about 40 years ago and

¶13

they have two sons. Both are married and living with their children. Applicant has constructed two houses for both of his sons, after selling some part of the ancestral property and both sons are living in the houses, constructed by the applicant. The agricultural land which is about 3.477 hectare has been devided in two parts and both the sons are enjoying the benefits of agricultural land. The applicant has also executed a Will of the entire property in favour of the grand children. The opposite party no.2 is living in the house where the family of elder son Anil Kumar is residing while the applicant is living with younger son namely Yogesh Kumar. There is no dispute regarding taking care of opposite party no.2 by the applicant as well as the elder son of the applicant. Without any rhyme and reason, the opposite party no.2 has filed application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. The opposite party no.2 is living with the elder son with her own will and elder son uses the land of opposite party no.2 for agricultural purposes. The opposite party no.2 also have possession over the ornaments along with cash amount. It is further contended that applicant is a driver on contractual basis and received fixed amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. Without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the income of the applicant, the court below has awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The opposite party no.2 is living happily with the elder son of her own free will and as such the application is not maintainable.

¶14

Admittedly the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she is living separately with the revisionist. It is the moral and legal duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife. The learned trial court has allowed the interim maintenance application making observation that considering the circumstance of the case, an amount of Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance should be awarded to the opposite party no.2 (applicant). This fact is not controverted that opposite party no.2 is living with her elder son in the pakka house constructed by the revisionist and the agricultural land is in possession of both the sons according to their shares. The learned court below has not considered these facts while assessing the amount of monthly maintenance. Considering the aforesaid facts, the amount of monthly interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- appears to be excessive.

¶15

¶16

Applicant is a driver in the roadways of a fixed salary and his monthly income is Rs. 25,000/- per month. The agricultural land is being cultivated by his sons and they are dependent for their livelihood on it. So considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the amount of monthly maintenance is liable to be reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs. 7000/- per month.

¶17

Accordingly the application is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 07.05.2022 passed in case no.346 of 2020 (Saroj Devi vs. Rajveer Singh) U/s 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Makkhanpur, District Firozabad is modified to the extent that the amount of monthly maintenance allowance is reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7000/- per month.

¶18

Order Date :- 08.12.2022 C. MANI

¶19

¶20

Digitally signed by CHANDRAMANI VERMA Date: 2022.12.09 15:53:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer Singh 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

Alok Bodhankar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sobur Casa Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alpesh Patel@ Khunt Alpesh Bhai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash @ Chinti and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another