Criminal revision challenging a family court order granting monthly maintenance. The High Court held the order was lawful, as the appellant admitted inability to earn sufficient income despite owning agricultural land and having concealed sources of income.
None; the maintenance order of the lower court was upheld.
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. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30803
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 389 of 2024
Revisionist :- Deepak Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Janendra Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.
Notices to respondent nos.2 and 3 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.
Aggrieved by the final order dated 21.12.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki, the instant revision under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act 1984 has been filed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has no source of income and he is incapable of giving the maintenance awarded by the learned court below.
Perused the record.
Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that it is not in dispute that respondent no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also come in the evidence that the revisionist has not paid any expenses towards the education of the minor son. He has tried to conceal his
source of income. He has admitted the fact that he is the only earning member of his family. He has adequate agricultural land. He has further admitted that he was given a car in dowry. Learned court below after considering the evidence on record has given the following findings:-
" 18. इस ्ቚककार डडी०डब्ललू०-1 ककी ्ቚततिपरडीकका ससे यह तिथ्य सकामनसे आयका हहै तक तविपकडी दडीपक ककमकार नसे आविसेतदकका यका उसकसे पक्ቔ कका पढकाई-ललखकाई आतद कका ककोई खरर विहन नहीሻ तकयका हहै। इसकसे अलकाविका तविपकडी कसे ्ቚततिपरडीकका बयकान ससे यह इइंतगिति हकोतिका हहै तक विह मकख्य परडीकका बयकान मम एविइं ्ቚततिपरडीकका मम परस्पर तविरकोधकाभकासडी बयकान तदयका हहै एविइं अपनसे आय वि आय कसे सकोति कको तछिपकानसे कका ्ቚयकास तकयका हहै , तकन्तिक ससौ रुपयसे ्ቚततितदन ककी मजदलूरडी करनसे ककी बकाति स्विडीककार ककी हहै। इसकसे अततिरर्ሹ आविसेतदकका कसे बडडी ्ቚकाइविसेट कम्पनडी मम ककाम करनसे और अच्छिका पहैसका कमकानसे सम्बन्धडी जविकाबदकाविसे कसे अतभकथन कको सकातबति करनसे कसे ललए ककोई सकाቌኚय नहीሻ हहै। अतितः सकाकडी डडी०डब्ललू०-1 कसे बयकान ससे आविसेतदकका कसे भरण-पकोषण ्ቚकाथरनका प्ቔ कसे कथनोሪ कका ककोई खण्डन नहीሻ हकोतिका हहै।
लडकसे कसे पढकाई-ललखकाई पर ककोई खरर नहीሻ करतिका हहै। तविपकडी स्विस्थ्य हहै और आय करनसे मम सकम हहै, यह तिथ्य भडी स्विडीककति हहै। तविपकडी ककी और ससे तविदकाई कका ककोई विकाद लमम्बति हकोन यका तफिर उसमसे न्यकायकालय दकारका ककाई तडककी पकाररति तकयसे जकानसे कका ककोई कथन नहीሻ तकयका गियका हहै। इस ्ቚककार तविपकडी यह भडी सकातबति कर पकानसे मम असफिल रहका हहै तक आविसेतदकका उसससे तबनका तकसडी ककारण कसे पकथक रह रहडी हहै।
ससे यह स्प्ቖ हहै तक आविसेतदकका तविपकडी कसे तविरू्ቍ अपनका भरण पकोषण कका विकाद सकातबति करनसे मम सफिल रहडी हहै। अतितः आविसेतदकका कका ्ቚकाथरनका प्ቔ अ-3 अइं० धकारका-125 दइं०्ቚ०सइं० यकातरति भरण-पकोषण धनरकातश कसे बकाविति आइंतशक रूप ससे स्विडीककार तकयसे जकानसे यकोग्य हहै।
आदस े श
On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the admission made by the revisionist before the court below, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned.
The revision being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.4.2024 Madhu
Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC is illegal and requires revision.
Whether the appellant is capable of maintaining himself apart from maintenance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shumita Devi vs SunitaFollowed¶18
Shumita Devi vs Sunita MANU0006.2216
RAJATHI VS C.GANESANFollowed¶19
RAJATHI VS C.GANESAN AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 2374 · Who else cites this
L.S. KENNEDY AGAINST MANU0026.2040Referred¶20
L.S. KENNEDY AGAINST MANU0026.2040
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Deepak Kumar
State Of U.P.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
Madhu Kumari
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
