Dismissed

Naeemuddin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023CRLR/214/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the husband's criminal revision against the Family Court's maintenance order. The Court held that despite the petitioner's claim of low income, the legal presumption stands against him for non-disclosure, and the awarded maintenance was not excessive but meagre given inflation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by the husband was dismissed.

Naeemuddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132250

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 214 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Naeemuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Niharika Dubey,Anurag Shukla,Vishakha Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh,Ramendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No.473 of 2020 (Smt. Nazreen Khan Vs. Naimuddin), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which learned court had fixed maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month for the wife/opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month for the daughter/opposite party no.3 from the date of application.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that maintenance awarded by learned Family Court in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 is highly excessive without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. The revisionist is engaged as labour in a bangle factory and is getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and the court below without recording any finding in respect of monthly income of the revisionist, had awarded Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of wife, who is opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter, who is opposite party no.3.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the revisionist is running a factory in the name and style of Wasi Bangle Store and had also having three ancestral houses and the approximate monthly income of the revisionist is around Rs.80-90 thousand. The opposite party no.2 had also filed affidavit in this regard before the Family Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court cannot be said to be excessive rather it is a meagre amount and the criminal revision preferred by husband is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no.3 is minor daughter of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party no.3 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and minor daughter in any circumstances. The husband cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to

¶11

earn enough to be able to maintain his wife and children. In the present case as the revisionist has not frankly disclosed his income, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Now it is the settled position of law that when the husband does not disclose to the court the exact amount of his income 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 a 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 Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of the minor daughter cannot 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 :- 5.7.2023 Kpy

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naeemuddin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naeemuddin 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

Kirt Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunaina Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Sangeeta Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bobby Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Lakhan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others