Partly allowed

Ram Nath Srivastav v. Smt. Mukta Srivastava

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023CRLR/4499/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court modified the Family Court's maintenance order. The Court found the husband failed to fully disclose his income, drawing an adverse inference. Although the previous award was slightly high regarding hardship, the monthly maintenance was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 20,000 post-judgment date.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court order modified: monthly maintenance reduced to Rs. 20,000 (Rs. 8,000 interim till 31.08.2022); arrears payable in six equal installments.

Ram Nath Srivastav Vs Smt. Mukta Srivastava — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190092

¶2

Reserved

¶3

Court No. - 79

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4499 of 2022

¶5

Revisionist :- Ram Nath Srivastav Opposite Party :- Smt. Mukta Srivastava Counsel for Revisionist :- Gopal Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- Indra Jit Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶7

Heard Sri S.G. Husnain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gopal Ji Khare, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indra Jit Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party, and perused the record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2022 passed by Additional Principle Judge-IV, Family Court, Allahabad(Smt. Mukta Shrivastava vs. Ram Nath Srivastav) in Maintenance Case No. 739 of 2014 by which the application of opposite party under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of application till the date of judgment and thereafter @ Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that opposite party had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 739 of 2014. It is alleged in the application that opposite party was being neglected by her husband-revisionist and he solemnized marriage with one Punjabi lady namely, Kiran Bala. It is also alleged that four sons and one daughter were born out of wedlock of the revisionist and the opposite party. After the marriage with Kiran Bala Sharma, husband-revisionist has refused to pay any amount for maintenance. The revisionist who is husband of opposite party appeared before the Family Court and filed his objection denying the allegations of application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but he admitted that he is in relationship with Kiran Bala Sharma and two sons and two daughters were also born out of relationship with Kiran Bala Sharma. It is also stated in the objection that the revisionist has provided his ancestral house to the opposite party and he was ready to keep opposite party with him but she has refused to live with the revisionist.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the

¶11

maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is highly excessive and without any basis. The revisionist is 65 years old retired person and is now getting pension. It is further submitted that the revisionist is suffering from several diseases of kidney and heart and hence huge amount of his pension is being spent on his treatment.

¶12

Lastly, it is submitted that Smt. Kiran Bala and four children are still living with the revisionist and the revisionist is maintaining them from his pension but the Court below while awarding amount of maintenance had failed to consider the comparative hardship of the revisionist and awarded very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party has submitted that the opposite party is legally married wife of the revisionist. The marriage was solemnized 40 years back and four sons and one daughter were born out of wedlock of revisionist and opposite party. It is further submitted that the revisionist has been living in relationship with one Kiran Bala since 1988 and neglected the opposite party. The opposite party-wife is domestic woman having no source of income and she is totally dependent upon the revisionist. The revisionist is getting pension of Rs.45,451/- per month, as such, the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is just and proper. It is further submitted that only Rs.8000/- per month was awarded from the date of filing of maintenance petition till the date of judgment i.e. 31.8.2022.

¶14

Learned Family Court had framed five issues for determination. The Family Court after considering rival claims of the parties as well as the evidence adduced by the parties had decided the issue no.1 in favour of opposite party holding that opposite party is legally married wife of revisionist. The learned Court below after considering the admission of revisionist that he has been living in relationship with Kiran Bala since 1988, has decided the issue no.2 holding that the wife has sufficient reason to live separately. The learned Family Court while deciding issue no.3 has recorded the finding that opposite party is an old lady having no source of income for her livelihood and she is totally dependent upon the revisionist. While deciding issue no.4, the income of the revisionist was assessed as Rs.45,451/- from pension and it is held that husband is in position to pay maintenance to the wife. The amount of maintenance has been assessed while deciding issue no.5 and revisionist was directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month from the date of application till the judgment and thereafter Rs.25,000/per month.

¶15

Learned Family Court has recorded the finding while deciding issue no. 4 that the revisionist is getting pension of Rs. 45,451/per month. It is admitted by the revisionist in his crossexamination that Kiran Bala is Principal of Sharda Shikshan Sansthan and also owner/proprietor of Kiran Trading Company. It is also admitted by the revisionist in his cross-examination that he is Manager of Sharda Shikshan Sansthan.

¶16

Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the opposite party is legally wedded wife of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife 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 children. In the present case as the revisionist has not frankly disclosed his income, an adverse inference can be drawn against him.

¶17

Now it is the settled position of law that when the husband does not disclose before the court the exact amount of his income and the question of maintenance of wife and children arises, the presumption would be against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal.

¶18

The learned family court while assessing the amount of quantum of maintenance has failed to consider the comparative hardship of the revisionist and the maintenance @ Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the learned family court is slightly on higher side.

¶19

In view of above, the criminal revision is partly allowed . The judgment and order dated 31.08.2022, passed by Additional Principal Judge-IV, Family Court, Allahabad is modified to the extent that the revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month from the date of application till 31.08.2022 and thereafter Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite party.

¶20

However, it is provided that the entire arrears up to date shall be paid by the revisionist in six equal monthly installments, failing which it is open for the opposite party to execute the judgment and order dated 31.08.2022 passed by learned family court.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 P.P.

¶22

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

Ram Nath Srivastav v. Smt. Mukta Srivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nath Srivastav v. Smt. Mukta Srivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chetan Bhatnagar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another