Dismissed

Rahul Dhir v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023A482/39992/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order enhancing maintenance. The High Court held that the trial court properly appreciated evidence of rising costs of living and found a change in circumstances, allowing no scope for interference.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to pay arrears of enhanced maintenance in three monthly installments.

Rahul Dhir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39992 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Dhir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shrikrishna Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record.Mr Shrikrishna Shukla, learned counsel for t he opposite party no. 2 is present.

¶6

The present applicant has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Addl. Family Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in Suit No. 296 of 2016, under Section 127 Cr.P.C. whereby the application filed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 127 CrPC. was allowed and the maintenance amount was enhanced and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 6000 each to opposite party no. 2 (wife) and her daughter opposite party no. 4 from the date of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and further it was directed that applicant shall pay Rs. 6000/- each to opposite party no 2 from the date of order and her minor daughter opposite party no. 4 till her marriage.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the court below has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not in a position to give the amount of maintenance.

¶8

Record reveals that on the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court below allowed maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 300/ each to her two minor daughters vide order dated 26.09.1998. Thereafter respondent no. 2 moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancing the maintenance amount granted to her and her minor daughters and the court below allowed the said application vide order dated 31.10.2022 and enhanced the amount of maintenance as aforesaid. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this court.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the above order on the grounds, inter-alia, contending that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence, on record, from the perspective

¶10

of requirements u/s 127 Cr.P.C ; that the learned trial Court has failed to assess evidence ( proof) of change in circumstances, as alleged by the respondents by applying judicial mind; and whimsically passed the impugned order.

¶11

Section 127 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to alter or modify the order of maintenance on account of (i) change in the circumstances of the party paying or receiving the maintenance, or (ii) any decision of a competent civil Court. Change in circumstances envisaged in Section 127 (i) CrPC contemplates not only change in relation to husband but also wife. Record reveals that the initial order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed in the year 1998 and after more than 8 years, the wife has invoked the claim under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to enhance the maintenance allowance looking to the day to day increased cost of expenditure. This application had been decided after 22 years on 31.10.2022. The proceeding under this Section is a quasi-civil and summary in nature and the standard of proof is not so high as is required in a criminal case.

¶12

The impugned order, clearly reflects that trial Court has taken into careful consideration of the respective pleadings of both the parties and appreciated the evidence adduced in support of their respective contentions in pleadings, so far they relate to the factum of substantial rise in cost of living as well as the income of the revisionist. The learned trial Court has found that the respondent no. 2, who does not have sufficient means to make her livelihood good looking to the increased cost of living in the present days. Hence, the learned trial Court, having found sufficient evidence of change in the circumstances of the revisionist passed the impugned order, enhancing the amount of maintenance allowance as aforesaid.

¶13

For the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned court below has not committed any illegality, while passing the impugned order, u/s 127 CrPC. I find no scope for interference in the impugned order. The impugned order is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from material illegality, irregularity, perversity and jurisdictional error.

¶14

The application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The applicant (husband) is directed to pay regularly pay the enhanced maintenance as directed by the court below. However, applicant is further directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance as awarded by the court below to the wife within a period of three months in three equal monthly

¶15

installments. The first installment shall be payable by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2 on or before 2.3.2023 and the second installment shall be payable on or before 2.4.2023 and the third installment shall be payable on or before 2.5.2023. In case of default in any of the installments, the entire amount shall become recoverable forthwith in accordance with law.

¶16

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Dhir v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Dhir v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Severam Kasana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotelal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zainuddin and 15 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Brajesh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Priyanka Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kedar Rajbhar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another