Dismissed¶16

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2025CRLR/91/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

criminal revision; Section 19(4) Family Courts Act; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; maintenance; minor legitimate children; neglect since 2014; Lekhpal; sufficient means; concealed income; Family Court Sultanpur; Criminal Misc. Case No.426 of 2017; Rs.6,000 per month each; Vijay Kumar; Karunesh Singh Pawar J.; 2025:AHC-LKO:4435; dismissed 23.1.2025

What did the court decide?

No relief to the revisionist; the Family Court's maintenance award (Rs.6,000 per month each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3) stands upheld. ¶16

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the revisionist; the Family Court's maintenance award (Rs.6,000 per month each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3) stands upheld.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being the revisionist's minor legitimate children whom he neglected to maintain, are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

It is undisputed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the revisionist's minor legitimate children; the court below's finding (paragraph 14 of the impugned order) that no payment was made since 2014 stands, and the revisionist's counsel admitted the non-payment before this Court; hence the revisionist has rightly been opined to have neglected to maintain his minor children.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist, employed as a Lekhpal, is a man of sufficient means: his salary slip shows Rs.39,440/- with yearly increments, while the court below found (paragraph 16) that he had not disclosed his immovable property and was hiding his actual income; the trial court's conclusion to that effect was rightly reached.

¶13

Key takeaways

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being neglected legitimate children unable to sustain themselves due to minority, who received nothing since 2014 up to the Family Court's order and even thereafter, were correctly held entitled to maintenance.ratio¶14
Considering the salary of both parents and the circumstances noted in the impugned order, the award of Rs.6,000 per month to each child until they attain majority is proper; there is no illegality in the impugned order.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 16 — CRIMINAL REVISION No. 91 of 2025 (Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.), order date 23.1.2025 [Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:4435]. Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act by Vijay Kumar against the order dated 18.12.2024 of Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.426 of 2017 (filed 2.5.2017), allowing the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application of his minor legitimate children (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) and awarding Rs.6,000 per month each as maintenance from the filing date, payable by the 10th of each month. Held: the children are undisputedly the revisionist's minor legitimate children, destitute and unable to sustain themselves due to minority; he neglected their maintenance — no payment since 2014 (finding at paragraph 14 of the impugned order, conceded by his counsel before this Court); though employed as a Lekhpal with a salary slip showing Rs.39,440/- and yearly increments, he had not disclosed his immovable property and hid his actual income (paragraph 16), making him a man of sufficient means; the award, made considering both parents' salaries, involves no illegality. Notices to respondent nos. 2 and 3 dispensed with; revision devoid of merit — dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4435

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 91 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Kushal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Anshuman Verma, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.

¶8

Notices to respondent nos. 2 and 3 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶9

The present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Ist Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.426 of 2017, by which application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and an amount of Rs.6000/per month each has been awarded as maintenance to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of application dated 2.5.2017 and the same shall be paid 10th of each and every month.

¶10

Perused the record.

¶11

A perusal of the records shows that it is undisputed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minor legitimate children of the revisionist. He has neglected their maintenance, which issue has been decided in Paragraph 14 by the learned court below. While deciding this issue, the learned court below made a specific finding that since 2014, no payment has been made by the revisionist to his minor children. This fact has also been fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist before this Court. Thus, it has been rightly opined that the revisionist has neglected to maintain his minor children.

¶12

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are destitute and unable to sustain themselves due to their minority. The revisionist is employed as a Lekhpal. In Paragraph 16 of impugned order a finding has been given by learned court below that the revisionist had not disclosed his immovable property and was trying to hide his actual income. Although,

¶13

his salary slip shows a salary of Rs.39,440/-, however, he accepted that he gets increment every year, thus, learned trial court had rightly concluded that he is a man of sufficient means.

¶14

Since, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are legitimate children of the revisionist, who have been neglected by him and they are unable to maintain themselves and no amount has been given to them since 2014 till the passing of the order by learned Family Court and even after passing of the order the amount is not being paid, thus, it has been correctly held by learned court below that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled for maintenance.

¶15

Considering the salary of both parents and the circumstances noted in the impugned order, the learned court below has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the child until they attained the age of majority, therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the order impugned.

¶16

The revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

Let a copy of this order be sent to learned court below concerned forthwith.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Geeta Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Basmati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Sageer Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Neeraj Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others