A Criminal Revision was filed challenging a Family Court order awarding Rs. 8,000/month maintenance to a minor son. The High Court found no illegality or factual error in the impugned order, held the amount reasonable relative to the husband's income, and dismissed the revision.
Cr. Rev. No. 1124 of 2023 dismissed as devoid of merit.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161442
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1124 of 2023
Revisionist :- Bhoora Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mukesh Kumar Maurya,Aaftab Ahmad Rain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2 in compliance of order dated 12.4.2023, however, none appeared.
As per report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, mediation completed but no agreement has been arrived at.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Virendra Nath Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Instant criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 20.1.2023 passed by learned Principal Jude, Family Court No. 1, Aligarh, in Maintenance Case No. 82 of 2021, whereby learned court below has awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the minor son of the applicant (opposite party no. 3) and opposite party no. 2, which is payable from the date of filing of application and will be due on 10th of each gregorian calendar month.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is opposite party before court below who is working as Subedar in Indian Army. The marriage of revisionist and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 18.2.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. A son was born out of their wedlock in 2008 who is named as Sandeep, however, relationship between husband and wife got estranged in course of time on account of levelling allegations and counter allegations against each other. Wife of the revisionist works as Shikshamitra and earns about Rs. 10,000/- per month and is able to maintain herself. Marriage of parties has been dissolved by ex-parte decree of divorce against which respondent no. 2 has filed restoration application which is pending before Family Court. This fact has been mentioned in impugned order passed by learned court below that net salary of the opposite party/revisionist after
deductions, is around Rs. 50,000/- per month. The revisionist has been paying maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the minor son from 2013. The revisionist has filed statement of amount paid to the respondent no. 2 from the salary of the revisionist as annexure no. 6 to present revision which reveals that total amount of Rs. 6,24,286/- has been paid by the revisionist to his wife through monthly deductions from his salary by the orders of head of department between the period May, 2014 to September, 2022. Although in impugned order learned court below declined to award any maintenance to the respondent no. 2, wife of the revisionist, however, the amount awarded to minor son, which is Rs. 8,000/- per month, is excessive. Respondent no. 2 was pressurizing revisionist to live separately from his parents which causes root cause of estrange relationship of the parties. Impugned order passed by learned court below is devoid of application of judicial mind and is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that impugned order passed by learned court below is reasonable. Revisionist being a government servant and defence personnel, is financially able to pay the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs. 8,000/- to his minor son on monthly basis which is a small fraction of his monthly income.
Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material and evidence available on record and on perusal of impugned order, I find no illegality, irregularity or factual error in impugned order passed by learned court below. The amount awarded for maintenance for minor son of the parties is reasonable and within known source of income of the revisionist. Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, revision stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023 A.P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order awarding maintenance to the minor son requires interference in criminal revision.
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded to the minor son is excessive or within the income sources of the revisionist.
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
