Dismissed

Manish Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023CRLR/4624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC fixing Rs. 8,000 monthly. The High Court found the lower court correct in considering the father's income of Rs. 40,000 and the daughter's need, dismissing the claim that the amount was excessive.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; maintenance order of Rs. 8,000 per month upheld.

Manish Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4624 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Manish Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Yadav,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahfooz Ahmad,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this criminal revision, revisionist-applicant has challenged the order dated 10.08.2022, by which application under Section 125 CrPC has been allowed and the revisionist-applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of order till her majority and Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of submission of application till the date of decision as maintenance amount to the Opposite Party no.3.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that the revisionist-applicant is a Goldsmith (sunar) , as such, he has limited means and is unable to provide maintenance fixed by the court to her minor daughter and, as such, impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eyes of law being too excessive.

¶8

In Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. It has been said in Rajnesh thus:

¶9

III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance

¶10

77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent 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.

¶11

78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent 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. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290 ]

¶12

79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] 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.

¶13

80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent 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. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]

¶14

81. 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. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356]. 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.

¶15

84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde [Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance: (SCC OnLine Del para 8)

¶16

"1. Status of the parties.

¶17

2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.

¶18

3. The independent income and property of the claimant.

¶19

4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain.

¶20

5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

¶21

6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.

¶22

7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant.

¶23

8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.

¶24

9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

¶25

10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

¶26

11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act."

¶27

From perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, it is apparent that after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and on the basis of evidence available on record, the learned court below reached the conclusion that Manish Kumar Verma (revisionist) is a man of means. He has monthly income of Rs.40,000/-. Opposite party no.3 (Ms. Pragya Verma) is her minor daughter and she has no income or means to sustain her life, whereby Manish Kumar Verma (revisionist) has neglected and refused to maintain her life. She has sufficient cause to live separately under the guardianship of her mother.

¶28

In view of settled legal position, enumerated above as well as analysis made above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error.

¶29

The present criminal revision being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Ashutosh

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Raj Karan @ Darbari Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mrs. Kajal Agarwal @ Simmi Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Musherraf Mahmood Buxhi Vs State of U.P. and Another