Disposed

Rajpal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024CRLR/101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court stayed the execution of a Family Court maintenance order vide Cro No.101/2024 ruling that the appellant may pay 50% of the awarded maintenance and arrears as an interim measure subject to compliance, citing Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance percentage.

What did the court decide?

Stayed execution of impugned order; ordered interim payment of 50% of monthly maintenance and 50% of arrears in five installments.

Rajpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 101 of 2024 Revisionist :- Rajpal

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Gyanendra Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the revisionist has challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Unnao in Case No. 380/2017, which was an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance. The Family Court has recorded in the impugned order that the opposite party no. 2 claims that the revisionist earns Rs. 40,000/- per month whereas the revisionist claims his monthly income merely Rs. 6,000/-

¶8

The Family Court held that even if it is assumed that the revisionist works as a daily wage labour, he would earn Rs. 500/- per day and his monthly income would come between Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/-. The Family Court has ordered the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife and Rs. 2,000/- to his daughter.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has filed his income certificate issued by Tehsildar as per which his income is between Rs.4,000/- to 6,000/- per month.

¶10

The learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a

¶11

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy , (2017) 14 SCC 200, wherein relying upon a previous judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari ; (1970) 3 SCC 129, it was held that it would just and proper to award as maintenance 25% of the husband's net salary.

¶12

6. The matter requires consideration.

¶13

Issue notice to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 returnable at an early date.

¶14

8. List this case in the week commencing 1st April, 2024.

¶15

Keeping in view of the aforesaid mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as an interim measure it is provided that the revisionist can pay 50% of the arrears of maintenance and will continue to pay 50% of the monthly amount awarded to the opposite party no.2 and 3as maintenance till the next date of listing. 50% of the arrears will be deposited in five equal monthly installments, commencing from First week of April, 2024. The execution and implementation of the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Unnao in Case No. 380/2017 shall remain stayed subject to the aforesaid condition.

¶16

In case the revisionist fails to abide by the condition, the benefit of the interim order shall not be available to him.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 9.2.2024 Preeti.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajpal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajpal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

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

Arshad Jameel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ravi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Subhash and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhagwati Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vishnu Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others