Held impugned order granting maintenance of Rs. 2,500 for wife and Rs. 1,500 for minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be reasonable considering inflation, dismissing criminal revision against it.
Criminal revision dismissed; revisionist required to pay arrears in six equal monthly instalments.
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:233197
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6004 of 2023 Revisionist :- Shamsher Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 5.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-Ist, Jaunpur in Case No.1058 of 2018 (Rabiya and another Vs. Shamsher Ali), by which application filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs.1,500/- per month to opposite party no.3, who is minor son of revisionist, from the date of application i.e. 17.11.2018.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Family Court had awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 without any basis. It is further submitted that learned Family Court has not recorded any finding in respect of monthly income of the revisionist and without considering the comparative hardship of revisionist had awarded an excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally married 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 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the Court is of the view that maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month in favour of
the minor son 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.
However, it is provided that revisionist shall pay the entire arrears as on date in six equal monthly instalments to the opposite party nos.2 and 3, failing which it is open to opposite party nos.2 and 3 to initiate recovery proceedings against the revisionist.
Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Kpy
Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500 for wife and Rs. 1,500 for minor son was excessive warranting interference in criminal revision.
Whether the Family Court failed to record findings regarding the revisionist's monthly income.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shamsher Ali
State Of U.P.
Rabiya
Minor Son
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
