Dismissed

Mohd. Zafar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2023CRLR/1201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision concerning a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order, the High Court dismissed the plea. The court held that the lower court's award of Rs. 3,000/month was not excessive based on the revisionist's assertion that his income exceeded Rs. 5,000/month. The court chose not to interfere with the quantum or consider ancillary custody submissions.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; maintenance order of Rs. 3,000 per month stands affirmed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1201 of 2023

¶3

Revisionist :- Mohd. Zafar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohammad Fateh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶5

The present revision has been filed against the order passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in case No.638 of 2019 (Smt. Firoz Vs. Mohd. Zafar) on 05.12.2022 operative portion of which is reproduced herein below :-

¶6

" ववाददिननी शनीमतनी दफिररोज कवा ववादि अन्तररत धवारवा 125 दिदं०्ቚ०सदं० अदंशतत स्वनीकवार दकयवा जवातवा हहै। दवपकनी मरो० जफिर करो आदि द ेशत दकयवा जवातवा हहै दक वह आव द ेन ्ቚस्त त ु करनदे कदे ददिनवक सदे शनीमतनी दफिररोज करो ्ቚदतमवाह ा भरण परोषण धनरवादश कदे रूप मम मतुब० -1,000/- रूपए ्ቚदतमवाह एवदं पतु्ቔरण मरो० अलनी व मरो० बलनी कदे भरण -परोषण धनरवादश कदे रूप मम मतुब० 10001000/- रूपए ्ቚदतमवाह कतुल तनीन हजवार रूपयवा भरण-परोषण हदेततु ्ቚत्यदेक मवाह ककी 05 तवारनीख करो अदिवा करदे। यददि दवपकनी दवारवा न्यवायवालय कदे आदिदेश कवा अनतुपवालन नहीሻ दकयवा जवातवा हहै , तरो ववाददिननी करो यह अधधकवार हरोरवा दक वह उ्ሹ भरण-परोषण धनरवादश न्यवायवालय कदे मवाध्यम सदे दवपकनी सदे वससूल करवा सकदे।

¶7

मरो० अलनी व मरो० बलनी वयस्क हरो जवानदे कदे उपरवान्त उपररो्ሹ भरण -परोषण ककी धनरवादश ्ቚवा्቎ करनदे कदे धलए अहर नहीሻ होሻरदे।"

¶8

Translated by the Court :-

¶9

“ Case of the complainant Mrs. Firoz under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is partially allowed. Defendant Firoz is ordered to pay Rs-1000 per month to Mrs. Firoz and Rs-1000 per month each for sons namely Mohd. Ali and Mohd. Bali as maintenance amount from the date of application for the maintenance and requires to pay a monthly total amount of Rs. 3000 on the 5^th of each month. If

¶10

defendant fails to comply with the order of the court, the complainant shall have the right to get the the above mentioned maintenance amount recovered from the defendant through court.

¶11

Mohd. Ali and Mohd. Bali shall not be eligible to receive the above mentioned maintenance amount once they have attained majority.”

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Court below without ascertaining the current income and without having any proof of income has made the aforesaid order.

¶13

Further he has submitted that though the revisionist made an application under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, but the opposite party not willing to stay with the revisionist and the revisionist is ready and willing to take care of his children, and accordingly he moved an application before the Child Welfare Committee, Shahjahanpur for meeting his children, which was not properly taken into consideration by the Committee.

¶14

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it reflects that the court below while granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the wife and Rs.1000/- each to the two children is justified as according to the assertions made in the grounds of the revision, it appears that the revisionist is earning more than Rs.5,000/per month. If that has to be taken into consideration, the aforesaid amount of maintenance awarded to the wife and two children is not excess amount, Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below. Accordingly the revision is dismissed.

¶15

(Donadi Ramesh, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 18.8.2023

¶17

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Zafar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Zafar 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 Rachana Soni and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naman Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mustkeem and Another Vs State of U.P.

Aneeta Verma Vs Rishipal

Smt. Neha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Priya Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others