Dismissed

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023CRLR/3593/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision filed by a husband against an order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor son. The High Court held that despite the husband's claim of hardship, the undisclosed income creates an irrebuttable presumption in his favor, rendering the awarded amount non-excessive.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay maintenance as ordered by the Family Court; impugned order upheld.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196588

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3593 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Aditya Kumar Yadav,Ashanjal Singh,Doodh Nath Yadav,Raj Kishore Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raj Kishore Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Varanasi in Case No. 45 of 2012 (Smt. Meena Devi vs. Manoj Kumar) by which application of opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the husbandrevisionist was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to wife-opposite party no.2 and Rs.500/- per month to his minor son.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that maintenance was awarded by the Family Court without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist and the amount of maintenance is highly excessive.

¶9

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 and the minor son in any circumstance. 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 the minor son. In the present case as the revisionist has not frankly disclosed his income, an adverse inference can be drawn against him.

¶10

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 arises, the presumption would be against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal.

¶11

Considering rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living

¶12

index, this Court is of the view that maintenance amount of Rs.2500/- per month awarded by the Family Court in favour of opposite party no.2-wife and Rs.500/- per month in favour of minor son, cannot said to be excessive.

¶13

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

¶14

The criminal revision is dismissed , accordingly.

¶15

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 P.P.

¶17

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

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Ravi Shankar Trivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muniv and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and Another