The High Court dismissed the criminal revision challenging a maintenance order of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding the amount not excessive.
The criminal revision was dismissed; the revisionist was directed to pay arrears in six monthly installments.
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:156338
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2380 of 2019
Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sheshmani Vishwakarma
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sanjay Singh holding brief of Sri Sheshmani Vishwakarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgement and order dated 15.03.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 348 of 2014 (Smt. Aneeta Devi Vishwakarma Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma) by which the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of filing application till the date of judgment and Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of judgement.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is highly excessive. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 earns Rs. 5,000/- per month from the tuition but this fact was not considered by the learned Family Court. Lastly it is submitted that learned Family Court without considering the comparative hardship and other liabilities of the revisionist had passed the order of maintenance on higher side.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is in lower side. It is further submitted that the revisionist has failed to produce any evidence regarding income of the opposite party no.2.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is admitted fact that opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist and as such the revisionist is under obligation to maintain his wife. The
maintenance awarded @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of filing application till the date of judgment dated 15.03.2019 and Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of judgement cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. No ground for interference is made out.
The criminal revision is dismissed , accordingly.
However, it is directed that the revisionist will pay entire arrears up to date in six monthly instalments, failing which it is open to the opposite party no.2 to execute the judgment and order dated 15.03.2019.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Virendra
Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is excessive warranting interference by this Court.
Whether the revisionist's low income of Rs. 5,000/- per month justifies reducing the maintenance award.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma
State of U.P.
Aneeta Devi Vishwakarma
Vipin Chandra Dixit
Virendra Kumar Bhartee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
