The Allahabad High Court, while upholding an order of maintenance granted under Section 125 CrPC, reiterated that only compulsory statutory deductions such as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary and no deduction is permissible for payment of LIC, home loan, instalments towards payment of loan for purchasing land or premium of policy of insurance.
Brief Facts:
The present revision petition was filed by the revisionist challenging an order passed by the family court under Section 125 CrPC, directing him to pay Rs. 15,000 to his wife and Rs. 5,000 each to his children till they attain the age of majority per month.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submitted that the trial Court has passed the impugned order against the weight of evidence on the record as well as the law applicable to the facts of the case. The trial court has misread and misinterpreted the documentary as well as the oral evidence on record. The trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that without any fault of the revisionist, the opposite party no.1 was residing away from him. It has also been submitted that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the concerned Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the opposite party No. 1 still she failed to live with the revisionist and perform her matrimonial duties, therefore her rights to maintenance allowance against the revisionist is barred under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that while determining the amount of maintenance allowance, the trial Court has not taken into consideration the monthly income of the revisionist.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the trial Court has passed the impugned order after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and it should not be interfered with. It has also been submitted that the revisionist is a central government employee and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.83,910/- per month in the year 2020 as it is mentioned in the trial court order and now his salary has increased from that amount.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the revisionist is working as a constable in CRPF and the opposite party No.1 has filed his salary slip for the month of January 2023, in which, his monthly salary has been shown as Rs.65,773/- The revisionist has pleaded in his written statement that his salary is only Rs.40,000/- per month and after deduction of instalment towards the loan taken for purchasing land and paying a premium of LIC, he is receiving only Rs. 28,446/- per month.
The court referred to the decision of the court in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Kumari, wherein it was held that only compulsory statutory deductions as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary and no deduction is permissible for payment of LIC, home loan, instalments towards payment of the loan for purchasing land or premium of the policy of insurance and stated that the alleged deduction from the gross salary of the revisionist/husband due to payment for a premium of insurance or instalment of plots purchased by him cannot be taken into consideration as no such deduction from gross salary is permissible under the law.
The court further reiterated that while deciding the criminal revision against the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or the corresponding section under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court shall take only into consideration the present income of the husband and wife for determining maintenance payable to the wife and children and in the present case, considering the expenses of the children, the maintenance granted cannot be considered as excessive.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Rana Pratap Singh vs Neetu Singh and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surendra Singh
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1762 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ashok Kumar Shukla
Advocate for the Respondent: Chandan Kumar Jaiswal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.vakilno1.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/maintenance.jpg
