The Allahabad High Court, in a petition filed challenging the order of maintenance held that awarding 25% of the monthly income of the husband as maintenance is not excessive and the amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband to make the payment.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition, challenging the order of the Additional Principal Judge, IIIrd, Family Court, Allahabad granting maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to opposite party no.2. Counsel for revisionist argued that opposite party no.2 was not his lawfully wedded wife, and her children were not his children.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submitted that the trial court without application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record passed the impugned order and contended that the orders were illegally passed by the court against the provisions of law merely based on surmises and conjectures and they are liable to be set aside. It was argued that the order of the trial Court was based on surmises and conjectures without application of mind. It was argued that the opposite party was deriving income from selling his crops and working on his farm. Her son and daughters were settled in their own lives. It was argued the revisionist was a 79-year-old retired government employee who was undergoing medical treatment. It was urged that the Trial Court had erred in adding the agricultural income to his pension before awarding the maintenance.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the trial court passed the impugned order in the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as well as 127 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence available on the record and considering the statutory provisions of the law allowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court under the law applicable to it and submitted that while passing the aforesaid impugned order, the trial court had taken into consideration both the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the revisionist.
Observations of the court:
The Court observed that the Trial Court had upheld his marriage with the opposite party on the grounds that he had produced no oral or documentary evidence regarding his marriage to Gayatri Devi. The Court held that service records which record the name of Gayatri Devi as the wife of the revisionist and her medical reports cannot be relied upon for concluding that the revisionist was married to Gayatri Devi. The court stated that the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature in which only prima facie it has to be seen that the applicant is the wife of the opposite party. It is a social legislation enacted to protect the wife, minor children and parents of a person from vagrancy and destitution.
Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, wherein it was held that the intent behind Section 125 CrPC is to lessen the suffering of a woman being made to leave her marital home by providing her means to sustain herself and the children.
The court further held the marriage between the parties as valid and stated that 25% of his monthly income, which is his pension, should be awarded to the wife and further increased the compensation granted by the Trial Court from Rs. 7000/- per month to Rs. 8664/- per month.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Matapher vs State of U.P and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surendra Singh
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3032 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Shri Krishna Tripathi
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A. , Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Pankaj Dwivedi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
