This criminal revision sought quashing of a maintenance order directing the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to his wife. The High Court rejected the claim of excessive award and dismissed the revision.
The criminal revision was dismissed; the revisionist must pay arrears in six monthly instalments.
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:236218
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2375 of 2023
Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Saini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vindeshwari Prasad,Arvind Kumar Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.558 of 2019 (Smt. Ruchi Vs. Santosh Kumar), by which application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is labourer having no fix income. Learned Family Court without recording any finding in respect of monthly income of the revisionist and without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist, had awarded an excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party no.2.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the Court is of the view that maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the wife cannot treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre.
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.
The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.
However, it is provided that revisionist shall pay the entire arrears as on date in six equal monthly instalments to the opposite party no.2, failing which it is open to opposite party no.2 to initiate recovery proceedings against the revisionist.
Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Kpy
Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court committed any illegality in awarding a meagre amount of maintenance.
Whether the maintenance awarded to the wife is excessive or meagre considering the cost of living.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of U.P.
Smt. Ruchi
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
