Revision filed against Family Court order enhancing a wife's maintenance from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- per month. The court held that no jurisdictional error, illegality, or infirmity existed in the order.
Revision dismissed; impugned order affirming enhanced maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month.
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.
Judgment Reserved on 16.01.2023 Judgment Delivered on 28.04.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4472 of 2022
Revisionist :- Shyam Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar,Shiv Vilas Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Judgment reserved.
2
before the Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, which was registered as Case No. 239 of 2011 (Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Shyam Lal). The revisionist filed objection in that case. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.03.2011 allowed the maintenance application and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.1500/- per month on 10th day of every month to the applicant wife. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 also filed an application under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit averring therein that the revisionist is not complying the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. She also stated that she is an old lady, aged about 65 years, and she is suffering from illness. Her treatment is going on in Medisty Hospital, Bareilly and she has no money for her treatment and maintenance. The revisionist opposite party in that petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is not paying maintenance of even Rs.1500/-, therefore, her treatment is stopped since February, 2017. She also stated that looking to the present state of economic crisis and inflammation her maintenance is not possible from Rs. 1500/-, therefore, her maintenance may be enhanced from Rs.1500/- to Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The revisionist contested the said application by filing reply to it, before the Additional Principal Judge, family Court, Pilibhit. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 28.09.2022 partly allowed the application of the opposite party no. 2 and modifying order dated 22.03.2011 enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.1500/-per month to Rs.3,000/- per month and revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month on 10th day of every month. Aggrieved by this order, present revision has been filed.
3
therefore, award of Rs.3000/- to the opposite party no. 2 was based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, the order passed by the Family Court is based on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is always ready and willing to keep opposite party no. 2 in his society but opposite party no. 2 left him without any justifiable cause and is living separately and presently interested only in receiving maintenance, therefore, she is guilty for desertion and is not entitled for any maintenance.
4
However, the revisionist has stated that his land is situated in the bank of river and not suitable for agriculture. The opposite party no. 2 herself stated that revisionist is about 70 years old, thus it is ridiculous to say him hale and hearty. She has taken away all the ornaments and cash, when she left matrimonial home. There appears no illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error, to interfere in the impugned order dated 28.09.2022.
Order Date :- 28.04.2022 Rmk.
Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the family court order enhancing maintenance from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- per month is liable to be interfered with in revision.
Whether the revisionist's land holdings and income status justify the enhanced maintenance amount awarded.
Whether the wife's failure to support her daughters or live with the husband disentitles her from enhanced maintenance.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Lal
State of U.P.
Smt. Shanti Devi
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
