Allowed

Geeta Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023CRLR/947/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision against a maintenance order. The Court modified the Family Court decree to enhance monthly maintenance for the wife and minor children, citing the husband's admitted income, and clarified the liability period.

What did the court decide?

Modified order to increase maintenance to Rs.3,000 per month for the wife and Rs.2,000 per month each for minor children; arrears to be paid in instalments.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155937

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 947 of 2019

¶4

Revisionist :- Geeta Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash Singh,Shive Datta Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 10.1.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No.1182 of 2015 (Smt. Geeta Yadav and others Vs. Brijbhan Yadav), by which the application filed by revisionists under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and the opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to revisionist no.1, who is wife of opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month each to revisionist nos.2 and 3, who are minor children of opposite party no.2.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that maintenance application was allowed by the Family Court and a very meagre amount of maintenance was awarded to the revisionists. It is further submitted that revisionists are wife and minor children of opposite party no.2 and it is legal and moral duty of opposite party no.2 to maintain his wife and children but the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is in lower side. In spite of admission of husband/opposite party no.2 that his income is Rs.15,000/- per month, the learned court below had erred in awarding a very meagre amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as total maintenance to the revisionists. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that learned Family Court had also erred in awarding maintenance from the date of judgment whereas the law has been settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha decided on 4.11.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020 , that wife and other dependents are entitled for maintenance from the date of filing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has

¶10

submitted that learned Family Court has awarded a very just and reasonable amount of maintenance in favour of revisionists and no ground for enhancement is made out. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that one son presently resides with opposite party no.2 and there are other liabilities of the family upon opposite party no.2 which was not considered by the learned Family Court and the excessive amount of maintenance has been awarded in favour of the revisionists.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, the Court is of the view that the opposite party no.2 being husband of revisionist no.1 and father of revisionist nos.2 and 3 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and minor children 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.

¶12

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.1,500/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each in favour of children cannot treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre.

¶13

In view of above, the present criminal revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 10.1.2019 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Azamgarh is hereby modified to the extent that opposite party no.2 is directed to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to wife/revisionist no.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to revisionist nos.2 and 3 from today. The arrears from the date of application till today shall be deposited at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month in total, as awarded by learned Family Court, in four equal monthly instalments.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Kpy

¶15

Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Geeta Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Kanak Kumari (Corpus) and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Km Kajal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Kareena Begum and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Kamal Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others