Allowed

Smt. Versha and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023CRLR/2466/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against Family Court order awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Court held Rs.7,000 for wife and Rs.3,000 for minor daughter insufficient, enhanced to Rs.10,000 and Rs.6,000 respectively and modified impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of wife enhanced to Rs.10,000/month and minor daughter to Rs.6,000/month; impugned order modified from date of Family Court judgment.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193989

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2466 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Smt. Versha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for revisionists and learned AGA appearing for the State. No one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, District Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 594 of 2018(Smt. Versha & another vs. Ravi Kumar) by which application of revisionists under Section 125 Cr.P.C has been allowed and opposite party no.2 was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to his wife-revisionist No.1 and Rs.3000/- per month to his minor daughter-revisionist no.2.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionists that the learned Family Court has awarded a very meagre amount in terms of maintenance without considering the monthly income of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is working in B.S.F. and is getting salary of Rs.45,180/- as per pay-slip. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Family Court had erred in awarding very less amount of maintenance in favour of wife and minor daughter, who is studying in class II, whereas the maintenance amount must be reasonable and realistic.

¶9

No counter affidavit has been filed denying averments made in the revision.

¶10

Admittedly, the revisionist No.1 is legally married wife of opposite party no. 2 and revisionist no.2 is minor daughter of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 being husband of revisionist No.1 and father of revisionist no.2 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and minor daughter in any circumstances.

¶11

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has laid down certain

¶12

guideline for awarding just and reasonable maintenance. Relevant paragraph (i) and (ii) of Part III is quoted herein below-:

¶13

"(i) The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

¶14

The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.

¶15

In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

¶16

On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.

¶17

(ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

¶18

The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort."

¶19

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 of Rs.7,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.3000/- per month to his minor daughter who is studying in class II is insufficient looking the income and status of husband and is liable to be enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/- in favour of revisionist No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to Rs.6,000/- p.m. in favour of revisionist no.2.

¶20

In view of above, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, District Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 594 of 2018(Smt. Versha & another vs. Ravi Kumar) is modified and maintenance awarded to wife-revisionist no.1 is enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month and maintenance awarded to minor daughter-revisionist no.2 is enhanced from Rs.3000/- to Rs.6,000/per month. The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay enhanced amount of maintenance to the revisionist from the date of judgment of learned Family Court dated 19.10.2022.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 P.P.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Versha and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Versha and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omvir Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ankit Jain and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Birendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Faisal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Radha Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Megh Singh @ Megharaj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another