In a criminal revision against an order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the husband's petition, holding the maintenance quantum was not excessive given economic conditions.
The criminal revision filed by the husband was dismissed.
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:156074
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4793 of 2009
Revisionist :- Kamal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.K.Gupta
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Sri Keshav Hari Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist states that his client is not responding and he has no instructions to argue the case.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of the revisionist as well as on behalf of opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4.
Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2009 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Criminal Case No.10/11/03, by which the application filed by private opposite party nos.2 to 4 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs.800/- per month each to opposite party nos.3 and 4, who are minor children of revisionist.
Learned Family Court while deciding the case has recorded the finding that opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist and opposite party nos.3 and 4 are minor sons of revisionist and as such under the law revisionist is legally bound to maintain his wife and children.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of record, the Court is of the view that the revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party nos.3 and 4 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and minor sons in any circumstances. 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. Keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.800/- per month each in favour of the minor sons cannot treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre.
In view of above, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The criminal revision filed by husband is liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Kpy
Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and minor children.
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive or perverse.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamal Kumar
State of U.P.
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
