Dismissed

Sudhir v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023CRLR/5363/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against Family Court order allowing maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. Court held maintenance of Rs. 5,000 monthly (Rs. 3000 to wife, Rs. 2000 to son) was not excessive despite claim of unemployment, especially given inflation. Non-disclosure of income drew adverse inference.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; family court order dated 11.10.2022 affirmed. No change in maintenance amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132227

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5363 of 2022 Revisionist :- Sudhir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlendra Tripathi,Devesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kripa Shanker Mishra,Shashikant

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Kripa Shanker Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 & 3 and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2022, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, in Case No. 722 of 2020 (Smt. Swati Chaudhary vs. Sudhir), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur by which the application filed by opposite parties no. 2 & 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3, who is minor son of revisionist.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance awarded by the learned family court is very excessive and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist was engaged as seasonal labour in sugar mill and at present he is unemployed having no source of income.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 and 3 has submitted that the maintenance awarded by the court below is in lower side and no interference is required in this case.

¶9

Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no.3 is minor son of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party no.3 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and minor son in any

¶10

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. In the present case as the revisionist has not frankly disclosed his income, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Now it is the settled position of law that when the husband does not disclose to 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.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the Court is of the view that maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the minor son cannot treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre.

¶12

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.

¶13

The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 sailesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudhir v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirt Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunaina Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Sangeeta Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bobby Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naeemuddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Lakhan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others