Dismissed

Bheem Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023CRLR/1174/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the husband against an interim maintenance order. The court upheld the award of Rs. 3,000 per month for his minor daughter, finding no illegality in the lower court's assumption of the respondent's earning capacity or the order's duration pending final disposal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed, affirming the interim maintenance order of Rs. 3,000 per month for the minor child.

Bheem Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190256

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1174 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Bheem Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajnath Ydav

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This criminal revision is filed against the judgement and order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Jaunpur in Case No. 28 of 2017 (Saroja vs Bheem Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Jabalpur, District Jaunpur by which the interim maintenance application filed by the respondent no. 2/ applicant has been allowed and the revisionist/ respondent has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the applicant from the date of order on 10th of each month during pendency of the case. Learned court below has also directed the contesting parties to co-operate in early disposal of the case without fail and in case of non co-operation of applicant in early disposal of the case, interim order may be cancelled.

¶8

From perusal of record it appears that original applicant Saroja was married with respondent/ revisionist in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 6.5.2007 and a daughter namely Km. Sejal was born out of their wedlock; the applicant in petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stated that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and torture and maltreatment by her in-laws in view of non fulfillment of demand of dowry; he has solemnized second marriage with some other woman without granting divorce to the applicant Saroja; original applicant Saroja died during pendency of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 6.10.2018 and case was continued by her mother Smt. Sahjadi (respondent no. 2), who claims maintenance for Km. Sejal, who is minor daughter of original petitioners on the ground that maternal grandmother was not financially able to maintain her grand child after death of her mother; the opposite party is possessed sufficient means to maintain his minor girl child; he is possessing sufficient agricultural land as joint family property and his monthly income

¶9

is around one lakh; he is able to maintain his minor daughter but he is ignoring to maintain her; the defacto guardian of the child, her maternal grandmother is claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance for minor girl child.

¶10

The opposite party moved objection 20-kh thereon, wherein, he admitted that child was born out of the wedlock with his previous wife; child is around 12 years of age; he never made any demand of dowry from his wife or her family members; she had gone to her parental home out of free will as she was exerted pressure on him to live separately but opposite party was not able to fulfill her demand; she filed present case on false averments and she died during pendency of the case; he visited to the place of his in-laws after death of his wife and asked them to hand over his daughter but they did not oblige; he contracted second marriage on 15.9.2019 after death of his wife; he is ready to keep his daughter Km. Sejal with him but he is not able to provide any maintenance for said girl child to her maternal grand parents. Learned court below after considering pleadings and submissions of both side directed the present revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to Km. Sejal, which is payable from the date of order.

¶11

Learned court below has observed in the impugned order that applicant has filed an affidavit of assets and liability pursuant to guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha in which she has stated monthly income of the revisionist of Rs. one lakh but she failed to provide any documentary evidence in support thereof; even it is assumed that opposite party is an agriculturist and he can earn Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month in absence of any evidence but to the contrary it is only stated that he is dependent on his parents; he has not denied parenthood of the child; the opposite party is under obligation to maintain his minor child; the applicant no. 1 Saroja died during pendency of the case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned court below has assumed monthly income of the revisionist Rs. 8,000/to 9,000/- without any cogent evidence; the revisionist contracted second marriage after death of his second wife Saroja original applicant; he himself approached his in-laws to take his daughter Km. Sejal with him but they did not concede his request; he is still ready to keep his daughter with him being a natural guardian but he is not in position to provide maintenance to her, as per the impugned order still she is residing with her maternal grand parents; revisionist is simple labourer and his annual income is only Rs. 42,000/- and in this regard, income certificate has been

¶13

issued by the Tehsildar, Saidpur, Ghazipur on 17.2.2023, copy thereof is filed as annexure-4 to the affidavit; he does not possess any agricultural land in his name; he is not possessed any property to his credit; father of the revisionist alongwith co-sharer as Khatedar of 0.127 hectare agricultural land, wherein, share of father of revisionist is only 03 Biswa and revisionist cannot earn Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month by agricultural activities on land of his father; the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and deserves to be set aside.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that original applicant Saroja has already died during pendency of the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and merely has awarded interim maintenance only to the minor child of original parties; amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- is minimum amount for subsistence and nurturing of child. Provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to recieve support. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of Judgement has stated that everybody whether he is employed somewhere or not is bound to maintain his wife, who is not having any independent earning or his minor children; the impugned order has been made affective from the date of order; maintenance case was filed in the year 2017 by the deceased wife of revisionist. However, he was saved from incurring any financial liability for maintenance of his wife due to destiny; the amount awarded Rs. 3,000/- for maintenance to girl child of revisionist is very reasonable and minimum amount for maintenance of the child; the amount awarded as interim maintenance, which is liable to be superseded after decision of main case, which is still pending before the court.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order as the amount awarded is minimum amount for subsistence of minor girl child of the revisionist and his late wife.

¶16

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The present revision is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Dhirendra/

¶18

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

Bheem Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem Yadav 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

Smt. Mamta @ Kumari Mamta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anisha Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Parvati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gulshan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Bindu Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Fiza @ Sonam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others