Partly allowed¶15

Rakesh Kumar Rawat v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025CRLR/552/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed in part: monthly maintenance of opposite party no. 1 reduced from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 3000/-; award to opposite party no. 2 left intact; total maintenance reduced to Rs. 5000/- per month, retaining the other conditions enumerated in the impugned order. ¶15

Rakesh Kumar Rawat Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court (total Rs. 6000/-) is excessive having regard to the revisionist's minimal economic resources. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

The amount awarded to opposite party no. 1 is reduced from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 3000/- per month; the amount awarded to opposite party no. 2 remains intact; total maintenance stands reduced to Rs. 5000/- along with the other conditions enumerated in the impugned order.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The court below has not rightly estimated the monthly income of the revisionist; even presuming the revisionist is a labourer who gets Rs. 400/- or Rs. 450/- per day as wages, it cannot be assumed that he gets work throughout the month.

¶13

Key takeaways

Proceeding on the footing, as contended by counsel for the revisionist, that the decree of divorce has become final between the parties, the amount of maintenance requires slight modification.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Allahabad High Court, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:19358) against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2023 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Maintenance Case No. 437 of 2019 under Section 125 CrPC, whereby maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 (total Rs. 6,000/-) was awarded from 1.6.2019. Held: the Family Court did not rightly estimate the revisionist's monthly income; even presuming the revisionist earns Rs. 400/- or Rs. 450/- per day as wages, it cannot be assumed that he gets work throughout the month; the decree of divorce has become final between the parties (as contended by counsel). The amount awarded to opposite party no. 1 (numbering as per the operative direction) was reduced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month, the amount awarded to opposite party no. 2 was left intact, and total maintenance was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- per month, with the other conditions of the impugned order retained. Revision allowed in part.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19358

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 552 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

The matter is taken up on the mention made by learned counsel for revisionist.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶8

Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 19.12.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in Maintenance Case No. 437 of 2019 (Smr. Archana Rawat and another Versus Rakesh Kumar Rawat), whereby application under Section 125 CrPC filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has been partly allowed and revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 2000/- per month to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively, total Rs. 6000/- per month, from the date of filing of application, i. e. 1.6.2019. The revisionist has further been directed to pay amount of maintenance by the tenth day of every month. It has also been directed that the revisionist shall pay arrears of maintenance in four equal monthly installments and that any amount received by the opposite parties towards maintenance, shall be liable to adjustment.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the maintenance is exorbitant from the angle of minimal economic resources of the revisionist. It is also submitted the court below has awarded maintenance to the opposite parties at the rate of

¶10

Rs. 6000/- per month and that too from the date of filing of application, i. e. 1.6.2019. He further submitted that the revisionist works in a grocery shop from where he gets Rs. 6000/- per month, therefore, it is not possible for him to pay Rs. 6000/- as maintenance and maintain himself and he has to maintain his widow mother also, who is dependent upon him. He has further submitted that the recovery proceedings against the revisionist are under way. He has further submitted that prior to filing of the application, the court below has awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/- and revisionist has paid entire arrears of interim and final maintenance. He lives at Mathura for earning his livelihood and he has also been paying maintenance on regular basis after taking loan from his relatives and well wishers. The court below has awarded maintenance to the applicants without estimating monthly income of the revisionist. Thus, the approach of the court below in awarding maintenance to the applicant is contrary to law. The marriage of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized without dowry and opposite party no. 2 was accorded proper care and respect in her matrimonial home. However, she used to pick up quarrels with the revisionist and his family members and often insisted to visit her parental home without any sufficient cause she shifted to her parental home and did not come back even after much pursuance of the revisionist. Revisionist had also filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rites in which opposite party no. 2 did not appear despite getting notice. The revisionist was compelled to file petition which was allowed and opposite party no. 2 filed an appeal against the order allowing petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was also dismissed.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the revisionist being husband and father of the opposite parties, is under obligation

¶12

to maintain them and take care of their fundamental necessities and the maintenance awarded by the impugned order, is quite reasonable and just and no reduction or modification is desirable therein.

¶13

Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after giving thoughtful consideration and perusal of material on record, I am of the view that the court below has awarded maintenance mainly on proposition that the opposite party being husband and father of the applicants is under obligation to maintain them but court below has not rightly estimated the monthly income of the revisionist and even if it is presumed that the revisionist is labourer and he is supposed to get Rs. 400/- or Rs. 450/- per day as wages, it cannot be assumed that he gets work throughout the month and that the decree of divorce has become final between the parties, as contended by learned counsel for revisionist, therefore, the amount of maintenance requires slight modification as hereinbelow:

¶14

In view of above, it is directed that the amount awarded to the opposite party no. 1 is reduced from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 3000/per month but the amount awarded to opposite party no. 2 will remain intact, thus, total maintenance is reduced to Rs. 5000/along with other conditions enumerated in the impugned order.

¶15

The revision is allowed in part.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.2.2025

¶17

¶18

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kumar Rawat v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Rawat v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases