Revision dismissed holding that the revisionist concealed income, refused to educate his minor son, and had agricultural land, thus failing to show inability to pay maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
Revisions dismissed; maintenance order of Rs. 7,000/month confirmed.
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 प्रककार डडी०डब्ललू०-1 ककी प्रततिपरडीकका ससे यह तिथ्य सकामनसे आयका हहै तक तविपकडी दडीपक ककमकार नसे आविसेतदकका यका उसकसे पकत्र कका पढकाई-ललखकाई आतद कका ककोई खरर विहन नहहीं तकयका हहै। इसकसे अलकाविका तविपकडी कसे प्रततिपरडीकका बयकान ससे यह इइंतगिति हकोतिका हहै तक विह मकख्य परडीकका बयकान मम एविइं प्रततिपरडीकका मम परस्पर तविरकोधकाभकासडी बयकान तदयका हहै एविइं अपनसे आय वि आय कसे सकोति कको तछिपकानसे कका प्रयकास तकयका हहै , तकन्तिक ससौ रुपयसे प्रततितदन ककी मजदलूरडी करनसे ककी बकाति स्विडीककार ककी हहै। इसकसे अततिररक्त आविसेतदकका कसे बडडी प्रकाइविसेट कम्पनडी मम ककाम करनसे और अच्छिका पहैसका कमकानसे सम्बन्धडी जविकाबदकाविसे कसे अतभकथन कको सकातबति करनसे कसे ललए ककोई सकाक्ष्य नहहीं हहै। अतितः सकाकडी डडी०डब्ललू०-1 कसे बयकान ससे आविसेतदकका कसे भरण-पकोषण प्रकाथरनका पत्र कसे कथननों कका ककोई खण्डन नहहीं हकोतिका हहै।
लडकसे कसे पढकाई-ललखकाई पर ककोई खरर नहहीं 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 नहहीं तकयका गियका हहै। इस प्रककार तविपकडी यह भडी सकातबति कर पकानसे मम असफिल रहका हहै तक आविसेतदकका उसससे तबनका तकसडी ककारण कसे पकथक रह रहडी हहै।
ससे यह स्पष्ट हहै तक आविसेतदकका तविपकडी कसे तविरूद्ध अपनका भरण पकोषण कका विकाद सकातबति करनसे मम सफिल रहडी हहै। अतितः आविसेतदकका कका प्रकाथरनका पत्र अ-3 अइं० धकारका-125 दइं०प्र०सइं० 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
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisionist can be held liable to pay maintenance despite claiming inability to earn income.
Whether concealment of source of income and refusal to spend on minor's education justifies the lower court's order.
Whether the impugned order under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act 1984 suffers from any illegality.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramati v. NeerajReferred¶21
Ramati v. Neeraj (AIR 1991 SC 1972) · Who else cites this
Rajathi vs C. GaneshanReferred¶20
Rajathi vs C.Ganeshan AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 2374 · Who else cites this
Shruti Tiwari v. R.D. PandeyReferred¶19
Shruti Tiwari v. R.D. Pandey 2004 CRLJ 3934
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
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
