High Court revisited Family Court order enhancing interim maintenance to Rs. 6,000/month. It found no legal error but reduced maintenance to Rs. 5,000/month applicable from the original judgment date, directing arrears payment.
Maintenance reduced to Rs. 5,000 per month from 13.9.2022. Arrears payable in three 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:160324
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4607 of 2022
Revisionist :- Anoop Agnihotri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sumit Goyal,Brij Mohan Sachdev Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2, despite service of notice on her, issued on directions of this Court.
Instant criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 13.9.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Room No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, in Maintenance Case No. 1203 of 2018, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Shilpi vs. Anoop Agnihotri), whereby learned court below has directed the opposite party/revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant/respondent no. 2 from the date of order. Order has been passed on application of applicant/respondent no. 2 seeking interim maintenance.
Factual matrix of the case are that applicant/respondent no. 2 Shilpi filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar seeking maintenance from her husband/revisionist. From perusal of impugned order dated 13.9.2022 it appears that initially Principal Judge, Court No. 4 passed an order on 5.8.2019 whereby Rs. 5,000/- monthly interim maintenance was awarded. Thereafter an application was moved by the applicant/respondent no. 2 for interim maintenance with averment that she is married wife of the revisionist. She is an ordinary housewife and she is not skilled lady. She was subjected to coercion and harassment by her husband and family members due to which she suffered partial disability as she lost her hearing capacity. She is not having any independent source of income. She is dependent on her parents. Revisionist is an healthy and able person who works in IIT and other places as civil contractor. Some 20 to 35 workers, works under him and his monthly income from different sources is
around Rs. 70,000/- per month. He also does farming work in his village and has let out a house on rent. She prayed for award of Rs. 20,000/- as interim maintenance. Revisionist appeared and moved an objection thereon in which he stated that respondent no. 2/applicant is not a simple housewife. She is qualified up to B.Sc. and she has also performed course of beauty parlor. She teaches children as tutor and she also works as beautician from her home. She earns Rs. 20,000/- per month. Revisionist is high-school passed out and works on contract basis as project mechanic in IIT. His services are temporary and he earns Rs. 40,000/- per month as fixed salary. He himself is residing in rented house for which he pays Rs. 6,000/- as rental. Electricity to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- is outstanding in said house. Both parties filed their statement of assets and liabilities pursuant to directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 , in the form of affidavit in which applicant/respondent no. 2 has shown his qualification as B.Sc., B.A. but her obligation as housewife. Opposite party/revisionist has shown his qualification as high-school passed out and filed a paper with regard to his contract. Revisionist filed a copy of passbook in which on 8.6.2020, Rs. 100 and on 18.6.2020, Rs. 18,500/- was deposited and on that basis learned court below came to the conclusion that average salary of the revisionist is more than Rs. 14,000/-. Applicant/respondent no. 2 could not shown any other documents in support of his income from rental of house or from agricultural activities. Learned court below also observed that on the basis of these facts, applicant/respondent no. 2 was awarded Rs. 5,000/- as interim maintenance previously which is enhanced to Rs. 6,000/per month in present order which will be payable as interim maintenance to the applicant/respondent no. 2 from the date of order.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that revisionist has filed account statement of respondent no. 2, Shilpi of her account in Bank of Baroda, Kanpur Nagar, in which different amounts have been deposited from time to time. This statement of account covers from the year 2016 to 8.11.2020, wherein balance is shown as Rs. 42,267/- in her account. He also submitted that respondent no. 2 works as beautician from her home and she is having substantial earning. Revisionist is not in a position to pay Rs. 6,000/- interim maintenance to the applicant/respondent no. 2 and said amount is on higher side which at least requires some deduction, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no infirmity in
impugned order passed by learned court below. Even the amount of maintenance has been awarded from the date of order, whereas as per directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), maintenance is to be awarded from the date of application. As amount is very reasonable, it warrants no interference.
Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material on record, account statements of the respondent no. 2 and grounds taken in present revision, I find no factual or legal error in impugned order passed by learned court below, however, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, amount of maintenance is liable to be reduced from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-.
It is directed that revisionist will pay Rs. 5,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent no. 2 from the date of impugned judgment and order dated 13.9.2022 as stated in that order and the amount of maintenance is modified from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The arrears of maintenance from the date of application to date of order will be paid by the revisionist in three equal installments wherein first installment will be due on 10th of September, 2023 and second and third installment would be payable by 10th of October, 2023 and 10th of November, 2023 respectively. Apart from that revisionist will have to pay monthly installment to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month. In case of any infraction on behalf of revisionist, coercive process process will be issued against the revisionist by the court below.
Revision stands disposed of with above observations.
Order Date :- 9.8.2023 A.P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance awarded at Rs. 6,000 per month was sustainable in light of the parties income and assets.
Whether maintenance should be awarded from the date of application as per Apex Court directions.
Whether the revision petition against the Family Court order warranted interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and anotherReferred¶10
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of U.P.
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
