Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3400 of 2024

¶3

Devendra

.....Revisionist(s)

Court No. - 91

¶7

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Case No. 998 of 2018 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Devendra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of the application.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 12.02.1996 and out of their wedlock one child (girl) was born, however, she unfortunately expired after two and half years of her birth, thereafter, revisionist had adopted a child (girl) with the consent of opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist as he has monocular vision and for the said reason, she does not live with revisionist and started living separately. It is next submitted that the amount awarded by the trial court is excessive as the revisionist is a labourer and having no permanent source of income. The said fact has not been considered by the court below while deciding the maintenance application.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that the amount of maintenance of Rs. 3000/- cannot be said to be excessive and beyond his capacity. It is further submitted that in paragraph no. 11 of the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that the revisionist is labourer and having 32 bigha land which appears the source of income. Apart from this, he is doing a business of cattle trade i.e. sale and

CRLR No. 3400 of 2024

2

purchase of cows and bafflows. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by court below, it appears that admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist regarding separate living of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the trial court while deciding the issue no. 2 has recorded its finding that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to torture on account of additional demand of dowry.

The finding recorded by the trial court is findings of fact and this Court being a revisional court, may not re-appreciate the evidence to return its own finding unless the finding recorded by the court is perverse and against the facts and law. So far as the income of the revisionist and opposite party no.2 is concerned, the trial court has also recorded the income of the opposite party no.2 and held that she is unable to maintain herself and the revisionist has admitted in his cross-examination, which transpires from the page no.11 of the impugned judgment, he has 32 bighas land and apart from this he is doing a business of cattle trade i.e. sale and purchase of cows and bafflows. In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, the maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury.

Keeping in view of the income of revisionist as well as guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) (supra), the amount fixed by court below cannot be said to be in excess or not in proportion to the income of the revisionist.

In the considered opinion of this Court, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the court below, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court.

So far as the amount of arrears of maintenance is concerned, it may be divided into 10 equal monthly installments. The first installment will fall on October, 15, 2025 and thereafter revisionist will continue to pay other nine installments in fifteen day of each month. In addition to the payment of installments of arrears of maintenance, the revisionist will continue to pay the monthly maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 as has been awarded by

CRLR No. 3400 of 2024

3

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶23

the trial court vide order impugned.