Dismissed

Akhtar Ali @ Jumman v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023CRLR/1390/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision against maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Husband challenged excessive award. Court held non-disclosure of income warrants adverse inference. Directed against revisionist as awarded amount is not high. Maintained order. Dismissed revision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed with no interference with the impugned maintenance order.

Akhtar Ali @ Jumman Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160448

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1390 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Akhtar Ali @ Jumman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Dube,Krishna Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

As per office report dated 07.07.2023, notice issued to opposite party no.2 was served through legal heirs. Despite service of notice no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgement and order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Gorakhpur in Case No.- 172 of 2014 by which application filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no.2 who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 1200/- per month to opposite party no.3, who is minor son of revisionist. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that a very excessive compensation has been awarded by the learned Family Court without recording any finding in respect of income of the revisionist. The income of revisionist is only Rs. 8,000/- per month and there are other liabilities of the family but learned Family Court without considering the comparative hardship has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance.

¶9

No one is present on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶10

Admittedly the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist and opposite party no.3 is minor son of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party no.3 is legally and morally bound to discharge legal obligations of maintaining his wife and minor son in any circumstances. The husband cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain his wife and son. In the present case, the revisionist has not frankly disclosed his

¶11

income, an adverse inference can be drawn against the revisionist. It is well settled law that when the husband does not disclose his actual income to the court and the question of maintenance of wife and children arises, the presumption would be against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on higher pedestal.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the Court is of the view that maintenance at the rate of 2,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 1200/- per month in favour of minor son cannot be treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre.

¶13

In view of above, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The criminal revision filed by husband is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The criminal revision is dismissed , accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.8.2023 Virendra

¶16

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

Akhtar Ali @ Jumman v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Ali @ Jumman v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Satyam Singh and Another Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Radhika @ Rinki and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Sanjay Kumar Singh (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Tannu Sachan @ Chandani Sachan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Muskan Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another